JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—Both these appeals are proposed to be decided together since they arise out of the same judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 1993 dated 30-12-1993. The accused were tried for offences under sections 363, 366, 376 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing rape on Kumari Veena (8). 2. The prosecution case is that Smt. Dolma (PW-2) is the widow of Shri Bhagat Ram. She was maintaining the children by working as a labourer and was residing at Budha Camp near Toll-tax barrier, Manali. Her children are two sons, Jiwan Lal (PW-8) and Ramesh (PW-4), and two minor daughters, including the prosecutrix Veeoa On 3-11-1992, Jiwan Lal was out of station. According to Smt Dolma (PW-2), the prosecutrix was sleeping after taking her meals at about 8.45 p.m When she wanted to come out of her house for urination, two persons came inside and asked her to agree for sexual intercourse. When she declined, she was bolted inside the room, which was unbolted by her son Ramesh after sometime. She was told that those persons had lifted away the prosecutrix She made hue any cry outside, but of no avail. No trace of the prosecutrix was found anywhere, 3. The prosecutrix returned during the night at about 2 a.m. without her trousers and stated that she was taken in a white Maruti Van towards the jungle where she was raped and the accused persons had fled away leaving her alone in the jungle and that she could identify the accused, On this version of Dolma (PW-2), the police registered First Information Report (Ex PA) on 4-11-1992 at about 2.30 a.m. under sections 363, 366, 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecutrix was medically examined at District Hospital, Kullu, by Doctor Neena Lal (PW-14). Her radiological test was conducted by Doctor G. D. Gaur (PW-15), stating her age between 8 to 10 years. Medico-legal certificate (Ex. PO) and radiological reports (Ex. PR and Ex. PS), based on skiagrams (Ex. P-9 to Ex. P-11) are also on the file. According to the school record, the age of the prosecutrix was 8 years 5 months and 8 days on the date of incident. Medico-legal certificate (Ex. PO) and radiological reports (Ex. PR and Ex. PS), based on skiagrams (Ex. P-9 to Ex. P-11) are also on the file. According to the school record, the age of the prosecutrix was 8 years 5 months and 8 days on the date of incident. During investigation, it was found that at the relevant time, Dolma (PW-2) was not in the house since she had gone with three persons towards the river side, leaving her minor son Ramesh and the prosecutrix in the company of Vijay Kumar, cousin of the prosecutrix and another minor child, Jiwan Lal was out of station and it came out that in the absence of Smt. Dolma, the accused entered her residence where she was not found. Accordingly, accused Shiv Ram lifted the prosecutrix from the house. She was taken away by white Maruti Van bearing registration No. HP-34-0206. It was driven by accused Dharam Chand alias Dinu towards Kanyal Road and accused Shiv Ram, who was sitting in the rear seat of the said van, committed rape on her. The vehicle was stopped before Kanyal wherefrom accused Shiv Ram took the prosecutrix towards the fields of villages Chhayal and Balsari where she was raped again. Thereafter, she was left alone, her trouser was left in the van and later thrown in the liver by the accused. 4. The accused were arrested on 10-11-1992 During investigation, Ramesh PW produced the blood-stained shirt (Ex. P-2) of the prosecutrix, which was taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo Ex. PE in the presence of Jindu Ram Pradhan (PW-3) and Hukam Ram, The accused were subjected to medical examination through Doctor Sher Singh (PW-J2); Medico-legal certificate in respect of accused Shiv Ram is Ex. PK and in respect of accused Dharam Chand Ex KL/1. The doctor opined that both the accused were capable of performing sexual intercourse. Pursuant to the statement (Ex, PF), recorded under section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, accused Shiv Ram got recovered his jacket (Ex P-3) and pant (Ex. P-4) vide recovery memo. Ex PG, which were worn by him at the relevant time, from his bed room. The police sealed it with seal R Further knife (Ex. P 5) was also taken into possession, vide recovery memo Ex PN, from the house of accused Shiv Ram. Shirt (Ex. P-6) was also taken into possession vide recovery memo. P-4) vide recovery memo. Ex PG, which were worn by him at the relevant time, from his bed room. The police sealed it with seal R Further knife (Ex. P 5) was also taken into possession, vide recovery memo Ex PN, from the house of accused Shiv Ram. Shirt (Ex. P-6) was also taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex. PJ. These articles were sent for analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Shimla, alongwith his underwear. Report (Ex PU) records semen stains on this underwear. Human blood stains were also found on the shirt of the prosecutrix. The police also procured birth certificate from the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Kullu, with respect to the date of birth of the prosecutrix (Ex PL), stating her date of birth as 21-5-1983. School certificate (Ex, PD) points out the same date of birth of the prosecutrix. Similar is the entry in the school admission from (Ex PE). 5. Site-plan of the residence of Dolma is Ex. PD. Site-plan of the house of accused Shiv Ram is Ex PB. Site-plan Ex PW is of the place where the vehicle in question was halted before the prosecutrix was lifted from her room. Site-plan Ex. PK shows the place where the prosecutrix was raped again by accused Shiv Ram in the field. Vide recovery memo. Ex. PY, the registration certificate of the vehicle was taken into possession. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and examining the record, the trial Court convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them. Accused Shiv Ram has been sentenced under sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 on each count and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months on each count. He has also been held guilty of committing rape on a woman under the age of 12 years, therefore, has been sentenced under section 376 (I) (f) of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. He has also been ordered to pay compensation to the prosecutrix through her mother Smt. Dolma to the tune of Rs 10,000, failing which recovery of the same as fine has been ordered and on realisation, a direction for the payment of the same to the victim has been made. Accused Dharam Chand alias Dinu participated in the commission of crime with accused Shiv Ram with common intention, therefore, he has been convicted under sections 363/366 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on each count and to pay a fine of Rs, 1,000 on each count and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months on each count. For facilitating accused Shiv Ram in committing rape on the prosecutrix and sharing common intention with him, he has been convicted and sentenced under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code as well with the aid of section 34 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. All the sentences of each of the accused have been ordered to run concurrently. They have also been given benefit under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Through the present appeals, the impugned judgment has been assailed by both of them. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. The record of the case was also perused carefully. 6. So far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, the learned Counsel for the parties did not make any submission. There is overwhelming evidence on the record pointing out that the prosecutrix was minor, aged about 8 years at the time of the incident. It is demonstrated by birth certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, Kullu (Ex. PC) and school admission certificate (Ex. PE), Radiological examination also placed her age between 8 to 10 years at the time of incident. There is overwhelming evidence on the record pointing out that the prosecutrix was minor, aged about 8 years at the time of the incident. It is demonstrated by birth certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, Kullu (Ex. PC) and school admission certificate (Ex. PE), Radiological examination also placed her age between 8 to 10 years at the time of incident. According to Doctor Neena Lal (PW-14), the breast of the prosecutrix was not fully developed, axillary and pubic hair were not present, she had multiple abrasions on the left back, face and arms (elbows) and her height was 4—2-1/2. 7. Now, the question is whether the prosecutrix was subjected to rape. There is no doubt on this question. It is proved by the prosecutrix herself, her mother and by the medical evidence. 8. Dr. Neena Lai (PW-14) examined the prosecutrix on 4-11-1992 and noticed multiple abrasions on the left back, face and arms. On examination of her vagina, there was moderate to severe swelling on the valval with tenderness and redness. Hymen was found torn and a second degree tear was present. It was bleeding. These injuries were caused within 24 hours, as indicated in the medico-legal certificate Ex. PO. The Doctor has also stated that there was interference with the vagina of the prosecutrix and she was exposed to coitus. 9. The prosecutrix has narrated the whole incident She has stated that she was subjected to rape inside the vehicle and then in the field for the second time. She was left there wherefrom she could reach her house during mid-night without trousers, as found by Smt Dolma also. The prosecutrix was taken to Primary Health Centre, Manali, wherefrom she was taken to District Hospital, Kullu, where she remained for number of days. It is, therefore, clear that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse, as alleged. 10. The important question to be settled now is as to who committed rape on the prosecutrix. The accused have denied it. It is submitted that their names do not find mention in the First Information Report and no identification parade was conducted by the police in this case, It may be true that Smt, Dolma did not disclose the names of the accused in her statement to the police. The police did not have their names till 8-11-1992. It is submitted that their names do not find mention in the First Information Report and no identification parade was conducted by the police in this case, It may be true that Smt, Dolma did not disclose the names of the accused in her statement to the police. The police did not have their names till 8-11-1992. The Investigating Officer explains that the prosecutrix was brought to the police station on 4-11-1992 but he did not inquire from her since she was crying out of pain and was unwell. She was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Manali, wherefrom she was referred to the District Hospital, Kullu. During the trial, she pointed towards accused Shiv Ram and stated that this accused lifted her with the assistance of accused Dharam Chand alias Dinu. She pointed out that it was accused Shiv Ram who had committed rape on her and the vehicle was driven by accused Dhararn Chand. Rape was also committed on her in the field nearby in village Kanyal where she was left naked and alone and from where she reached her house at about 2 a.m. She was crying out of pain. She has stated in her cross-examination that she recognised accused Shiv Ram and other accused in the electric light, though she did not know their names at that time She has given a detailed account of the manner in which she was lifted from the house, raped in the vehicle and then in the field by accused Shiv Ram. The entire story was revealed to her mother also. She has also identified her shirt (Ex. P-2) which she was wearing at the time of incident. Human blood was found on it. 11. The police had also brought two other persons in the hospital but they were not identified as culprits Pointing towards accused Dharam Chand, the prosecutrix stated that this accused was accompanying accused Shiv Ram at the time of incident. 12. Shri Ramesh (PW-4) is the brother of the prosecutrix. He corroborates her version. He recognised both these accused. When he had cried for help, accused Shiv Ram had brandished a knife. The prose cutrix was taken in a white Maruti Van. When his mother reached the house, entire story was narrated to her. They searched for Veena, but could not trace her. He corroborates her version. He recognised both these accused. When he had cried for help, accused Shiv Ram had brandished a knife. The prose cutrix was taken in a white Maruti Van. When his mother reached the house, entire story was narrated to her. They searched for Veena, but could not trace her. She reached in the house at about 2 a.m. She was not having Pyjama and her shirt (Ex. P-2) was blood stained, which was handed over to the police. In cross-examination, he has clearly stated that accused Shiv Ram had picked-up a quarrel with his brother Jiwan Lal about a year ago and he knew the accused by face since then. This fact is confirmed by Jiwan Lal (PW-8) when he met the prosecutrix in the District Hospital, Kullu. 13. Shri Ramesh (PW-4) did not reveal the names of the accused to his mother during the night since he knew them only by face and not by name. He has denied that the prosecutrix was not lifted by the accused. 14. Jiwan Lal (PW-8) met the prosecutrix in the Hospital where he was told that she was raped by that person who had picked-up quarrel with him (accused Shiv Ram) and both the accused were resident of nearby village Palsari Nasogi. Accordingly, he told these names to the police on 9-11-1992 and they were arrested the next day. 15. Panna Lal (PW-9) lends credence to the prosecution case as to the identity of the accused. According to him, both the accused were in his company in the evening of 3-11-1992. They took liquor with him and his relations. Accused Dharam Chand alias Dinu had demanded his van with promise to return the same with half an hour- The vehicle was handed over to him but it was not returned within the result that he had to go to his residence on foot. It was impounded by the police on 14-11-1992 in connection with this case The incident took place during this night of 3/4th November, 1992.. This way, the identity of the accused is settled and is beyond doubt. 16. Shri Praneet Gupta referred to 1991 (III) Crimes 199, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr. It was impounded by the police on 14-11-1992 in connection with this case The incident took place during this night of 3/4th November, 1992.. This way, the identity of the accused is settled and is beyond doubt. 16. Shri Praneet Gupta referred to 1991 (III) Crimes 199, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr. MV Ramana Reddy & others ; and 1993 (III) Crimes 466, State of Maharashtra v. Subhaiya Kanak Maniah and others, to urge that the identification parade should have been held in this case by the prosecution in order to establish the participation of the accused in the commission of the crime. Both these decisions turn upon their own facts and are not, therefore, applicable to the facts of this case. As a matter of fact, the decision of the apex Court relied upon by Ms Shyama Dogra, learned Deputy Advocate General, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1413, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sunder Lai, is nearer to the problem before us. In para 3, it has been stated that : "3. We have perused the judgments of both the Courts and also the evidence of PWs. 2 and 4. We are of the opinion that the High Court was in error in disbelieving the testimony of PW 2 with respect to the identity of the accused The girl was 13 years old and she could not have forgotten the face of the man who committed such ghastly crime upon her. It is not the case of the defence that there was no light, On the contrary, the prosecution evidence is that accused himself made PW 4 prepare lamps, and light them, before taking away PW 2. It is not a case where PW 2 had a mere fleeting glimpse of the accused We are, therefore, of opinion that the identity of the accused has been amply established by the evidence of PWs. 2 and 4. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the learned trial Judge.” 17. It has been pointed out by the prosecutrix that when she was escaping to the first floor, the accused persons had put on the light It also appears from the prosecution evidence that the accused persons had been visiting this house in the past also. It has been pointed out by the prosecutrix that when she was escaping to the first floor, the accused persons had put on the light It also appears from the prosecution evidence that the accused persons had been visiting this house in the past also. On the day of occurrence they inquired about Smt Dolma and when she was not found in the house they took away the prosecutrix. 18. Facts and circumstances of the case are such that it is established beyond doubt that the crime was committed by none else than the accused The assessment of the evidence and the finding on this question by the trial Court is quite apt and in accordance with the evidence. It cannot be said that it is perverse or unreasonable. It is, therefore, confirmed 19. The result, therefore, is that there is no merit in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.