JUDGMENT - A.P. SHAH, J.:---These two appeals, one by the accused and other by the State for enhancement of sentence, are directed against the judgment and order dated 14th December 1983 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 409 of 1981 recording order of conviction under section 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing the accused to R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, further sentence of 3 months R.I. 2. Kum. Pushpa is the prosecutrix. She was below 16 years on the date of commission of offence. Pushpa was residing with her parents Pandurang and Vimal at Khar Danda, Mumbai. The accused was known to Pushpa as she used to reside in the same locality. Besides, the accused was also a friend of her maternal uncle Tulsidas Padri. She used to visit her maternal uncle's house and there, she used to meet the accused. 3. Pandurang, the father of Pushpa was at the material time in K.E.M. Hospital where he was admitted for the treatment of his eyes. In fact, he underwent an eye operation. Pushpa used to take food and tea to the K.E.M. Hospital for her father. 4. On 10th July 1980, Pushpa had gone to the hospital at 11 a.m. carrying with her food and tea for her father. She left the hospital for her residence at about 3.30 p.m. When she came out of the gate of K.E.M. Hospital, the accused met her at the gate and enquired of her as to where she was going. Pushpa told the accused that she was on her way to her residence. Thereupon the accused told her that he had his own taxi and he could drop her at her residence at Danda. Upon this representation Pushpa got into the taxi. When the taxi came to the Linking Road Junction, the accused told her that his wife was in Nanavati Hospital that he would go and see his wife in the hospital and thereafter he would drop her at her residence. The appellant then took the taxi to the hotel belonging to one Marwadi. The accused took her inside the room of the hotel and there he committed rape on her threatening her that in case of her shouting she would be finished. The appellant then took the taxi to the hotel belonging to one Marwadi. The accused took her inside the room of the hotel and there he committed rape on her threatening her that in case of her shouting she would be finished. Both of them came out of that hotel and the accused dropped her home at 5.45 p.m. in his own taxi. 5. Pushpa reached home, she was bleeding from her private parts. After half an hour, she become unconscious. Her mother Vimal, P.W. 13 and her brother Eknath removed her in a taxi to Bhabha hospital. She was profusely bleeding. 6. Pushpa was medically examined by Dr. Dilip Chaniary, P.W. 12 of Bhabha hospital. She gave the history of rape on 10-7-1978 sic 1980 at about 5 p.m. and told that she was bleeding from her vagiana since 5.30 p.m. She regained consciousness at about 10 p.m. in the hospital. She narrated the incident to her mother. 7. P.W. 15, S.I.Bagal, who was attached to Bandra Police Station, was intimated about the incident on telephone. S.I. Bagal along with Police Constable went to Bhabha Hospital for inquiry. He contacted Pushpa in the ward. He questioned her about the incident and recorded her statement. Then he also recorded the statements of her mother Vimal and brother Eknath. He inquired about the age of the girl from the mother and the brother of the prosecutrix. He collected the extract of School Leaving Certificate from Khar Upper Municipal School on 11th July 1980. Surprisingly, however, S.I. Bagal decided not to register the offence in this case. He has stated before the Court that he felt that the material was not enough so he did not register the offence. He has further stated that he called the accused for further inquiry on 3/4 occasions but did not think it necessary to register the offence or to carry further investigation. He has further stated that the decision of not to register the offence was taken after taking consent of his senior P.I. Sharma. We are not at all satisfied with the manner in which S.I Bagal has conducted the investigation. However, we will deal this aspect a little later. He has further stated that the decision of not to register the offence was taken after taking consent of his senior P.I. Sharma. We are not at all satisfied with the manner in which S.I Bagal has conducted the investigation. However, we will deal this aspect a little later. For the present, suffice it to say that no offence was registered till about the end of October 1983 despite the fact that Pushpa had categorically stated that the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with her. 8. In the meantime, P.W. 5, Kashinath who was a friend of the father of Pushpa informed about the incident to Pandurang in the K.E.M. Hospital. Pandurang after coming to know about the incident, was shocked. He confirmed this from his wife Vimal and his daughter Pushpa and inspite of the medical advice, he got himself discharged from the K.E.M. Hospital on 9th September 1980. Pandurang made an application dated 23rd September 1980 to the Commissioner of Police and copies of the application were sent to the Prime Minister of India and Chief Minister of the State. After receiving the application, the Commissioner of Police forwarded the papers to A.C.P. Rodriques who took away the investigation from S.I.Bagal and directed P.W. 14, S.I.Parab to re-investigate the matter. 9. During the course of investigation, S.I. Parab collected the relevant birth certificate as well as the original registers from the hospital. S.I. Parab again recorded the statements of the witnesses including the prosecutrix and her parents. It is revealed from the documents collected by the police that Pushpa's birth date was 29th November 1964 and she was below 16 years at the time of commission of offence. The accused was arrested in Pali Hill area on 3rd November 1980. During the interrogation, the accused made a statement that he would show the hotel where Pushpa was taken by him. The accused took them to the Marwadi Hotel at Juhu. The panchanama to that effect was drawn vide Exhibit 7. After close of the investigation, S.I.Parab submitted the chargesheet against the accused under section 66 and section 376 of I.P.C. and section 57 of the Bombay Children Act before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Bombay. 10. The case was committed to the Sessions in the usual course. Before the Sessions Court the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and led documentary evidence. 10. The case was committed to the Sessions in the usual course. Before the Sessions Court the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and led documentary evidence. The defence of the accused was one of the total denial. He stated that he had married in to Nava Budda community which was not liked by the entire Koli community. Pandurang, father of Pushpa, is a leader of Koli Community who was hostile to him and had lodged several complaints to the Municipal Corporation against the accused. The accused had not given one room in his house to Pandurang as per his demand and besides Pandurang wanted his younger brother to get married to Pushpa which did not happen. On account of all these reasons, according to the accused, Pandurang had lodged a false complaint against the accused. The accused claimed that he had not raped Pushpa as alleged, neither had he kidnapped her. 11. The learned trial Judge upon careful appraisal of the evidence produced by the prosecution held that the charge under section 376, I.P.C. has been proved by the prosecution and sentenced the accused in the manner indicated hereinbefore. 12. We have heard Mr. Samant, learned Counsel for the appellant-accused and Mr. Thakur, learned P.P. for the State. 13. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the finding recorded by the trial Court that Pushpa was less then 16 years of age on the date of the commission of offence is not at all challenged by Mr. Samant. The prosecution has produced on record the birth Register Book No. 24 containing entries from 4th November 1964 to 5th February 1965. The entry at Sr. No. 542 dated 16th January 1965 is in respect of the birth of the female child to Vimal and the birth date is shown as 29th November 1964. The prosecution has also examined Dr. Shashikant Awasare who is one of the proprietors of Dr. Kashibai Nursing Home, Santacruz (West), Mumbai. He has produced the registers for the year 1964. He has also produced the entry at Sr. No. 293, Exhibit 18. The entry shows that Vimal gave birth to a female child on 29th November 1964. In view of this clear and unimpeachable evidence, Mr. Samant admitted before us that the girl was below 16 years on the relevant date. 14. He has also produced the entry at Sr. No. 293, Exhibit 18. The entry shows that Vimal gave birth to a female child on 29th November 1964. In view of this clear and unimpeachable evidence, Mr. Samant admitted before us that the girl was below 16 years on the relevant date. 14. P.W. 4 Pushpa had narrated the incident as stated above in detail in her deposition before the Court also. She has deposed that 2/3 months prior to the incident, her father had admitted in the K.E.M. Hospital for the treatment of his eyes. She used to go to see her father at K.E.M. Hospital and used to serve tea and food to him. As usual on 10th July 1980, she reached at about 11 a.m. and she then served her father tea and food and left the hospital at about 3.30 p.m. When she came to the gate of the K.E.M. Hospital, the accused met her at the gate and he asked her where she was going. She told him that she was going home. The accused told her that he has got his own taxi and also told her that he would leave her at her residence at Danda, so she sat in the taxi. They were alone in the taxi and the accused was driving the taxi. When they came to Linking Road Junction Pushpa found that the accused was taking the taxi towards other side of Danda. She told him that she was getting late. Then he represented to her that his wife (her aunty) was in Nanavati Hospital, he would see her and drop her at her residence. Initially, she refused to accompany the accused but the accused gave her assurance that he would drop her within 5 minutes. Then the accused drove the taxi to Juhu. The taxi was stopped near the hotel which was being run in a chawl like structure. The accused told her that it was Nanavati Hospital. Then he took her in one of the rooms of the hotel. He closed the door of that room and removed her clothes and had forcible sexual intercourse with her against her will. The taxi was stopped near the hotel which was being run in a chawl like structure. The accused told her that it was Nanavati Hospital. Then he took her in one of the rooms of the hotel. He closed the door of that room and removed her clothes and had forcible sexual intercourse with her against her will. Thereafter both of them came out of the hotel and the accused dropped her at her residence at about 5.45 p.m. After reaching home, she started bleeding from her private part and after about half an hour she became unconscious. Her mother and her brother Eknath removed her to Bhabha Hospital. There, she narrated to her mother what had happened to her. Pushpa was cross-examined at length and an attempt was made to show that she was a willing partner and she had consented to sexual intercourse. In the cross-examination, she stated that she has suffered injuries with nail marks. She had also stated that the accused was with her in the act of intercourse for nearly an hour and she was all along shouting. 15. Mr. Samant strenuously contended that the testimony of Pushpa is so discrepant in material particulars that it was unsafe to base any conviction thereon. Mr. Samant argued that there were no injury marks of violence on the private part or elsewhere on the person of Pushpa and this belies a story that the accused raped her. The story of Pushpa that throughout the sexual intercourse she kept on shouting also appears to be totally improbable. She did not complain to the person who was sitting outside the room when she came out. She did not report the incident to her mother till 9 o'clock although the incident had taken place at about 5.45 p.m. She intimated the doctor to examine her that the neighbour had committed rape on her but failed to disclose his name. The statement of Pushpa was recorded by S.I. Bagal. The statement was signed by Pushpa. The statements of her mother and brother were also recorded by S.I.Bagal. After the statements were so recorded, S.I.Bagal consulted his Senior P.I.Sharma and then decided that in view of the statements recorded no case should be recorded against anybody. Mr. Samant argued that there is a delay on the part of the father in making the application to the Police Commissioner. After the statements were so recorded, S.I.Bagal consulted his Senior P.I.Sharma and then decided that in view of the statements recorded no case should be recorded against anybody. Mr. Samant argued that there is a delay on the part of the father in making the application to the Police Commissioner. He was discharged from the hospital on 9th September 1980. He has not explained as to why he did not approach the Police Commissioner till 23rd September 1980. According to Mr. Samant, Pandurang did not lodge the complaint immediately because Pushpa was not prepared to make the serious allegation and accusation against the accused that he had committed rape on her and that after a lot of coaxing and administering threats to her she was finally persuaded toe the line which Pandurang wanted her to adopt and only when she agreed to toe his line that after a lapse of nearly two months after his discharge from hospital that is on 2nd November 1980 he lodged the complaint against the accused. 16. In our opinion, the arguments of Mr. Samant are devoid of any substance. We have carefully gone through the testimony of Puspha-prosecutrix. As we view it, the prosecutrix was a reliable witness. Her evidence not only inspires confidence but is otherwise corroborated on all material particulars as we shall presently point out. Even without such corroboration, It will be permissible to base the conviction solely on the basis of the testimony of the prosecutrix. There are a series of decisions to the effect that even in cases wherein there is lack of oral corroboration to that of a prosecutrix, a conviction can be safely recorded, provided the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity, and the probabilities factor does not render it unworthy of credence, and that as a general rule, corroboration cannot be insisted upon, except from the medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. vide (1) (Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan)1, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 54, (2) (Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat)2, 1983(3) S.C.C. 217 , (3) (Krishan Lal v. State of Haryana)3, 1980(3) S.C.C. 159 . 17. The evidence of Pushpa is corroborated by her mother Vimal who has categorically deposed that on 10th July 1980, her daughter went to see her father at K.E.M. Hospital. 17. The evidence of Pushpa is corroborated by her mother Vimal who has categorically deposed that on 10th July 1980, her daughter went to see her father at K.E.M. Hospital. She returned home at about 5.45 p.m. She was complaining about the pains in the abdomen. She was bleeding and, therefore, Vimal and her son Eknath took her to the Bhaba Hospital by taxi. She was admitted in the hospital in a Ward. In the hospital she was told by her mother that the accused took her to the hotel and raped her. Dr. D.N. Chaniary has stated that he examined Pushpa on 10th July 1980. Patient Pushpa gave him the history of rape at about 5 p.m. She was bleeding per vagina since 5.30 p.m. On examination he found that her general condition was fair and her temperature was normal. Her pulse was about 90 per minute. B.P. was 110/70. There was no pallor, no external marks of injury seen on her person. Her nail bed showed no skin tags. Her per abdominal examination, nothing abnormal was detected. Genital was found to be normal. No marks of injuries were seen public hair present. Dr. Chaniary deposed that on per-speculam examination, left formix tear 3 to 4 inches long was detected. There was no bleeding from O.S. (Opening). Saturing was done for the tear. Doctor has deposed that injury tear in left formix 3" x 4" in size could be caused if Pushpa subjected to sexual intercourse by force. This bleeding was due to this injury and not due to menstruation. 18. The evidence of Dr. Chaniary fully corroborates the story given by the prosecutrix. She had disclosed the incident at the earliest opportunity when she was examined by Dr. Chaniary. She narrated the incident to her mother at about 9 p.m. In these circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix- Pushpa. 19. The suggestion of Mr. Samant that there being no marks of violence on the private parts or elsewhere on the person of the prosecutrix, there could be no offence of rape on her is wholly misconceived. Rape has been defined in section 375, I.P.C. according to which a man is said to commit "rape", who except in the cases therein excepted has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the five descriptions stated therein. Rape has been defined in section 375, I.P.C. according to which a man is said to commit "rape", who except in the cases therein excepted has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the five descriptions stated therein. We need not deal with all the descriptions. Suffice it to point out that where a person on whom rape is committed is under 16 years of age, even consent is immaterial (vide: fifthly of section 375) and penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape (vide explanation to section 375). No attempt has been made on behalf of the accused to take his case out of these provisions. Absence of marks of violence on private parts or elsewhere on the person of Pushpa would merely suggest want of violent resistance on her part, which is wholly inconsequential when the prosecutrix is under 16 years of age. Absence of violent or stiff resistance in the present case may as well suggest, helpless surrender to the inevitable due to sheer timidity. In any event her consent would not take the case out of the definition of rape. 20. It is difficult to accept for us the contention of Mr. Samant that because of enmity of the father of the prosecutrix against the appellant, he may have been falsely implicated in the case. It may be that the father of prosecutrix had filed complaint against the appellant to the B.M.C., but it is absurd to suggest that because of any enmity that he may have against the appellant, he would falsely involve his daughter in a case of rape by the appellant. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention of the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity with the father of prosecutrix. 21. Mr. Samant next argued that the accused was not medically examined although he made himself available to the investigation partially. According to Mr. Samant, absence of medical examination of the accused has caused serious prejudice to the accused. Mr. Samant brought to our notice the following observations of Dr. Harisingh Gaur in his thesis on Penal Code. "It is always desirable that the accused in a rape case should be medically examined as soon as possible. According to Mr. Samant, absence of medical examination of the accused has caused serious prejudice to the accused. Mr. Samant brought to our notice the following observations of Dr. Harisingh Gaur in his thesis on Penal Code. "It is always desirable that the accused in a rape case should be medically examined as soon as possible. In cases of rape victim and the accused persons should be specially examined with a view to ascertain if they are infected with veneral disease. Where the accused denies the charge of rape, it is the duty of the prosecution to secure medical examination of the accused within the period of time when conclusive results could be achieved. According to books on medical jurisprudence there are four tests to be applied to corroborate or contradict evidence with regard to rape. They are the presence or absence of (1) marks of violence about the genitals, (2) marks of violence on the person of the prosecutrix or prisoner, (3) stains of spermatic fluid or of blood on the clothes of the prosecutrix or the prisoner, and (4) gonorrhoea or syphilis in one or both. In a charge under section 376 where a medical examination of the male organ of the accused as to the existence of smegma round the corona glandis, the presence of which is proof against penetration, is lacking or not done, the accused is entitled to say that, if a medical examination of his body had been conducted, he would have been in a position to show that the condition of those parts negatives the possibility of recent complete penetration or proves that there was no penetration. In rape case the medical examination of the male organ of the person accused of the offence of raping is very essential. Failure to do so may entitle an accused to say that if a medical examination of the vital or the material parts of his body had been conducted, he would have been in a position to show that the condition of those parts negatived the possibility of recent complete penetration or proved that there was no penetration. Therefore, it is the duty of the prosecution, if according to the medical jurisprudence, medical examination is capable of yielding conclusive results, to ensure that examination within a period of time when conclusive results can be achieved." 22. Therefore, it is the duty of the prosecution, if according to the medical jurisprudence, medical examination is capable of yielding conclusive results, to ensure that examination within a period of time when conclusive results can be achieved." 22. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that it is desirable to have the accused medically examined after his arrest but non medical examination of the accused does not necessarily vitiate the prosecution case. Inferences have to be drawn in every case from the given set of facts and circumstances. There is no inflexible axiom of law which lays down that the absence of injuries on the male organ of the accused would always be fatal to the prosecution case and would discredit the evidence of the prosecutrix, otherwise found to be reliable. Every case has to be approached with realistic diversity based on peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. In the present case, the investigation conducted by S.I. Bagal was completely defective and casual. He has not even registered the offence. The learned trial Judge has observed that the attitude of S.I. Bagal was completely dishonest and partial to the accused. On closer scrutiny of the record, we are inclined to agree with the observations of the learned Judge. We have reason to believe that S.I. Bagal deliberately refused to register the offence in order to help the accused at the costs of the prosecutrix. But despite this deficiency, the prosecution has successively proved the offence of rape. We have, therefore, no hesitation in confirming the conviction recorded by the trial Court under section 376 of the I.P.C. 23. Now, the next question is whether the sentence awarded by the trial Court is adequate. We find that the learned Judge has awarded only two years of punishment. No reasons are assigned for giving such light punishment in a serious case of rape. The accused is a married man. He had taken disadvantage of his friendship with the family of the prosecutrix. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment would serve the ends of justice. 24. In the result, we dismiss the appeal filed by the accused being Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 1984. He had taken disadvantage of his friendship with the family of the prosecutrix. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment would serve the ends of justice. 24. In the result, we dismiss the appeal filed by the accused being Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 1984. We allowed the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra being Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1984 and confirm the conviction of the accused under section 376, I.P.C. but enhance the sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and the fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. On the request made by the learned Counsel for the accused, 4 weeks time is granted to the accused to surrender to his bail. States Appeal allowed.