Judgment V. S. KOKJE, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant Santokh Singh has been found guilty of an offence under Ss. 376, 450, 363, 323 and 324 of the IPC by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment with Rs. 500/- as fine, five years of rigorous imprisonment with Rs. 200/- as fine, three years of rigorous imprisonment, six months simple imprisonment and six months simple imprisonment respectively for the aforesaid offences. ( 2 ) THE case against the appellant is that on 23rd June, 1991 in the afternoon he took away Snehlata, aged 9 years from the house of her parents to the nearby field and had forcible sexual inter-course with her. When Snehlatas mother who was sleeping in the house found that her daughter was not there, she tried to search her along with a neighbour Krishan Kumar. They were told by some boys that she was taken by the Bavri, member of a Barat which had come in the neighbourhood, to the field behind the house of the victim. Vimla, mother of Snehlata and Krishan Kumar went to the field and got a glimpse of the accused in the act. On seeing them, he ran away leaving one of his shoe behind. Vimla then went to Kulchandra village and informed her husband Om Prakash who arrived in the village and complained to the Panchayat and when the Panchayat failed to do justice in the matter he lodged the report on the advise of the Panchayat. The report was thus, lodged on the next day on 24th June, 1991 at 6. 30 p. m. After investigation trial was held which resulted in the aforesaid convictions and sentences. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the FIR was lodged more than 24 hours after the offence was committed and there was no explanation for the delay. According to the learned counsel the complainants were groping in the dark about the person who had committed the rape and, therefore, could not lodge immediate FIR naming the culprit. According to the appellant the defence version that rape was committed by three boys of the village who were brought before the Panchayat and who had admitted the guilt before the Panchayat appears to be probable. According to the appellant the defence version that rape was committed by three boys of the village who were brought before the Panchayat and who had admitted the guilt before the Panchayat appears to be probable. It was contended that what transpired before the Panchayat has also been suppressed by the prosecution from the Court. Heavy reliance was placed on the statement of PW-6 Santosh Kumar, the brother of the victim. It was further contended that from the evidence it is clear that near by the spot from which the victim was alleged to have been taken away by the accused person 100 to 150 people were under the Kikar tree and it was not possible that their attention would not be attracted to forcibly taking away of the girl from her house. It was also contended that the medical evidence did not show any injury on the external genital parts of the accused which gave a complete lie to the story that he had raped a nine year old girl. Lastly it was contended that the sentence was too harsh in the circumstances of the case. ( 4 ) WE have gone through the record and heard the learned counsel. The prosecution has examined PW 2 Om Prakash, the father of the prosecutrix, PW 3 Vimla Devi, mother of the prosecutrix, PW 4 the prosecutrix herself, PW 5 Krishna Kumar, the neighbour who had gone in search of the prosecutrix along with her mother, PW 6 Santosh Kumar brother of the prosecutrix, PW 7 Dr. Rajendraj Kumar who had medically examined the prosecutrix and PW 8 Dr. R. C. Ola who had medically examined the accused. The learned counsel for the appellant took us through the statements of these witnesses. He could not point out anything material in the testimony of these witnesses which may discredit them. However, in the testimony of PW 6, the brother of the prosecutrix, aged about 8 years it was pointed out from his cross-examination that the witness could not even name of the books in third and fourth standard was Santokh Singh. From this an inference was tried to be drawn that the witness was tutored the name of the accused and, therefore, he was giving the name of Santokh Singh even when he was asked the name of the book. From this an inference was tried to be drawn that the witness was tutored the name of the accused and, therefore, he was giving the name of Santokh Singh even when he was asked the name of the book. However, at the same time the learned counsel wanted to place reliance on statement of this witness. This witness said that there was a panchayat at that place and many boys who were in the school in the same class with her sister were called. He gave names of three boys also who were called in the panchayat and were guilty. Fathers of these boys were also called according to him. The boy also stated that these three boys begged to be excused and promised not to repeat the thing again. It was contended that in the face of these statements the entire prosecution story falls to the ground because this discloses that the complainant party was grouping in the dark and were not aware of the real culplrit. When we see the testimony of Santokh Kumar in the light of the other evidence on record find that the testimony is not reliable, it only shows that this witness is not capable of distinguishing between truth and false hood and his testimony has to be discarded totally. After all there was no reason for the complainant party to rope in the accused, there being no previous enmity between the prosecutrix and she herself as also the neighbour would implicate an innocent person when they had come to know of the offence having been committed by three young boys who had confessed to their guilt in the panchayat. If the version given by Santokh Kumar had been true the villagers, especially, the neighbour at whose invitation the accused person had come to the village in the marriage party could not have allowed such a false thing to be perpetrated. PW 10 Prithvi Singh was asked about this. He had denied that during his investigation he had come to know that in the panchayat three boys had confessed to their guilt. We do not find any force in this contention of the appellant. PW 10 Prithvi Singh was asked about this. He had denied that during his investigation he had come to know that in the panchayat three boys had confessed to their guilt. We do not find any force in this contention of the appellant. ( 5 ) IT was next contended that it is clear from the evidence that at the time when the prosecutrix was said to have been abducted about 150 people had gathered in the Barat under the Kikar tree in front of the house. It is submitted that it was impossible for anyone to have forcibly taken this girl of nine years in the presence of such a huge crowd to any other place. The contention has no force. The prosecutrix has deposed that she did not raise any alarm as she was threatened. It has come in the evidence that these 150 persons were dancing to the tune of musical instruments and percussion instruments. It is also not clear that at what distance from the house of prosecutrix this kiker tree under which the Barat had camped was there. In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that the accused could not have taken away the prosecutrix from her place to the field behind her house without being noticed by the members of the Barat. ( 6 ) THERE is also no force in the point that the entire prosecutrix case is concocted against the accused person and that is evident from the delay in lodging the FIR. We find that the delay has been explained. The complainant party first went to the panchayat and failing to get justice from the panchayat, immediately lodged a report on the advise of the panchayat itself. In our opinion, the FIR cannot be said to be belated in these circumstances there being explanation for the time lag between the commission of the offence and lodging of the report. ( 7 ) WE, now, deal with the appellants contention that since he had not received such injury which would naturally be caused in commission of forcible sexual inter-course with a nine year old girl, he cannot be held guilty of rape. Firstly no question has been asked to the medical experts examined in the case in this regard. ( 7 ) WE, now, deal with the appellants contention that since he had not received such injury which would naturally be caused in commission of forcible sexual inter-course with a nine year old girl, he cannot be held guilty of rape. Firstly no question has been asked to the medical experts examined in the case in this regard. In Modis Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 21st Edition, at page 380 it has been observed as follows :-"injuries to the genital parts may result from force exerted by the accused or from forces applied by the victim. In addition to scratches or lacerations on the penis caused be the finger nails of the victim during a struggle, an abrasion or a laceration may be discovered on the prepuce or glands of penis, but more often on the fraenum, due to forcible introduction of the organ into the narrow vagina of a virgin, especially of a child, but is not necessary that there should always be marks of injuries on the penis in such cases. " ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rahim Beg v. State of U. P, ( AIR 1973 SC 343 : (1972 Cri LJ 1260) which was followed by this Court in Lalaram v. State of Rajasthan, (1992 Cr LR (Raj) 524 ). The case in hand differs on facts from the aforesaid cases. In both the above cases acquittal was not based on the sole fact of no injury being found on the male organ. Coupled with other circumstances favouring the accused it was found also to be a ground of acquittal. Paragraph 26 of the Supreme Court decision indicates that medical opinion in that case also was that injuries are likely to be suffered and not that in all cases injury on the male organ would invariably be there is case a child has been sexually abused. This point also, therefore, has no force. ( 9 ) AS regards the sentence, looking to the circumstances of the case in which a 32 years old adult had committed rape on a defencelesss child of 9 years we do not find any extenuating circumstances to interfere with the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the learned Addl. Session Judge. ( 10 ) THE appeal has no force and is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .