This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 20.3.97 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge at Nagaon in Sessions Case No. 143 (N-H) of 1996. 2. Prosecution case is that the victim girl Nazmun Nehar is the daughter of Ikbal Ahmed of Village Ramnagar No. 2, PS Lanka, District Nagaon, Assam. On 13.12.93 the victim girl was sleeping in her house at night when the four accused persons namely Abdul Latif, Majid Ahmed, Abdul Haque and Karamat Ali trespassed into her house and caught hold of her hands and legs. She raised alarm. One of the four accused persons gagged her mouth and the other three carried her out of the house. The victim girl was taken to the house of one Kutuman of Village Samarali. There all the four accused persons committed sexual assault on her. She was kept for 3 days there and was subjected to such rape regularly by all the four accused persons. Thereafter she was taken to the house of one Ali Ahmed and then she was removed to Dimapur. The victim girl was confined at Dimapur for three months and there also she was subjected to rape regularly by the accused persons. The matter some how came to the knowledge of the Muslim Cultural Organisation and they recovered the victim girl and put her into the custody of her father. 3. After three days of the incident, father of the victim girl lodged FIR with Police of Lanka PS. He stated that as the villagers assured him of a village settlement, there was delay in informing the police. The victim girl was examined by the Doctor of Lanka PHC. According to the Doctor age of the victim girl was about 15 years and there was sign of rape. 4. Police investigated into the case and submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons under section 366/376IPC. 5. The four accused persons appeared before the Court of learned Magistrate at Hojai as the sections 366, 376 IPC, are triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 6. The accused persons appeared before the Court o/ learned Sessions Judge, charges were framed against them under section 457,366A, 376/34 IPC, and the charge so framed were explained to them. The accused person pleaded not guilty. 6. The accused persons appeared before the Court o/ learned Sessions Judge, charges were framed against them under section 457,366A, 376/34 IPC, and the charge so framed were explained to them. The accused person pleaded not guilty. As many as 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The victim girl Nazmun Nehar was examined as PW 1 by the prosecution. In her a evidence she stated that she was aged about 14 years at the time of occurrence and she was reading in Class DC. She stated that at the time of incident she was sleeping in her house along with her younger brother. Her father and mother were sleeping in another room. Suddenly, she heard voices of men entering into her room and she woke up. She stated that four persons were trying to carry her from the bed. Three persons carried her and one gagged her mouth so as to stop b her from crying. She stated that the accused persons took her to the house of Kutuman of Village Samarali. She stated that Kutuman is the relative of accused Abdul Latif. In the day light she could recognise the accused Latif, Majib, Karamat and Abdul Haque. She stated that at the house of Kutuman the accused persons stayed in one room with her and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. She was thereafter taken to the house of one AH Ahmed and she was kept there for 5/6 days. There also at the house of Ali Ahmed the accused persons committed rape on her. Thereafter accused persons removed her to Dimapur at the house of Bihari Gentleman. It is stated by PW 1, there also accused persons committed rape on her. She stated mat she was kept in such a condition as she failed to inform her family regarding the incident. She stated with the help of her relative ^ and with the help of local police and with the help of local Muslim Organisation she was rescued and recovered. Statement of the victim girl was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate at Hojai after she was recovered and produced before the Magistrate. PW 1 stated that she was examined by the Doctor of Lanka PHC. She stated that she knew the name of Village Samarali or of the person Kutuman from the accused person. She stated that she was taken to Dimapur. PW 1 stated that she was examined by the Doctor of Lanka PHC. She stated that she knew the name of Village Samarali or of the person Kutuman from the accused person. She stated that she was taken to Dimapur. She denied the defence suggestion that she voluntarily accompanied the accused persons from place to place and consented to sexual intercourse. 7. PW 1 stated that she did not know the name of the place where she was kept. She came to know the name of the place Dimapur only after she was recovered. She denied that she had gone to Diphu to get her age ascertained by a Doctor. PW 1 denied that she had gone to Diphu to execute a deed of marriage agreement before a Magistrate. PW 1 stated that accused person obtained signature from her forcibly. Ext Ka is the deed of marriage agreement in form of affidavit. Ext Ka (1), Ext (2) are my signature. Ext Kha is the medical certificate, Ext Kha (1) is her signature. PW 1 stated that she was kept in a house at Dimapur for about three months. She stated that during these three months accused persons had sexual intercourse with her. She stated that she was recovered and rescued by Police and she stated that she had been taken to her maternal uncle's house. She stated that from her maternal uncle's house she was taken to the Police Station. She stated that she was medically examined at Lanka. She stated that she knew accused Abdul Latif. She denied that she had requested Abdul Latif to marry her and for the said purpose she accompanied Abdul Latif to Diphu to h execute marriage agreement. She denied that at Diphu and Dimapur she and Abdul Latif lived as husband and wife. 8. PW 2 stated that he was the complainant in this case. The occurrence took place on 13.12.93 in his house. He stated that he had heard screaming of his daughter and on going to her room he found accused Abdul Latif, Majib Ahmed, Keramat Ali and Abdul Haque lifting his daughter. PW 2 lodged FIR to the police on 16.12.93. The police rescued his daughter from Dimapur after three months. A Muslim Social Cultural Organisation rescued the girl and handed over to her to the custody of her maternal uncle Saukat Ali. 9. PW 2 lodged FIR to the police on 16.12.93. The police rescued his daughter from Dimapur after three months. A Muslim Social Cultural Organisation rescued the girl and handed over to her to the custody of her maternal uncle Saukat Ali. 9. PW 3 stated mat he knew the complainant who was his elder sister's husband. 10. PW 4 Raja Ali is a relative of the victim girl. He married the sister of the wife of the informant. After about three months of the incident he came to know that the victim girl was traced out at Dimapur. PW 4 then went to Dimapur. PW 4 then contacted Muslim Social Cultural Organisation of Dimapur and rescued the victim girl. 11. PW 5 is Dr. Tapan Paul who examined the victim girl. He found the following injuries on the person of the victim girl: “Hymen was found raptured. Sign of violence present in her private parts. Approximate age of victim girl is 15 years whether she was raped or not - yes.” 12. PW 6 is the mother of the victim girl. She also corroborated the evidence of her husband PW 2 and stated that at the alarm of her daughter she came out along with her husband and found the accused persons carrying her daughter. She stated that the accused persons entered into her house by breaking the door of the house. In her evidence she clearly stated the names of the accused persons. She stated that along with her husband she tried to rescue her daughter but failed to do so. She stated that PW 4 rescued the victim girl from Dimapur. 13. After hearing the case of the accused person the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused persons under section 457IPC, and sentence them with rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each and in default to further rigorous imprisonment for two months. He also convicted the accused persons under section 366 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 each and in default to further rigorous imprisonment for six months each. 1,000 each and in default to further rigorous imprisonment for two months. He also convicted the accused persons under section 366 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 each and in default to further rigorous imprisonment for six months each. In addition further convicted the accused persons under section 376 (2) (g) IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 each in default to further rigorous imprisonment for six months each. 14.1 have heard Mr. PC Dey, learned counsel for the appellant at length. Mr. Dey in his lengthy argument pointed the delay of the first information report as well as some of the discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses. The first information was lodged on 16.12.93 before the Lanka Police Station, the occurrence though took place on-13.12.93. The informant himself explained in the FIR the reason which prevented him from lodging the first information report. The accused and the informant belong to the same village and when the matter was taken up by the village authority, naturally the informant father awaited for the decision of the village authority. In an area when such occurrence took place reliance on the village authority by a villager cannot be said to be unnatural. The delay in lodging the FIR in the facts and circumstances of the case do not in any way affected the core of the prosecution version. 15. The key witness in this case is PW 1 Mustt Najmun Nahar, the victim girl. She gave a graphic account of the entire incident all throughout by naming the accused persons. For days together she was accompanied by these accused persons. Therefore, the identify of the accused do not cast any form of doubt regarding their involvement. 16. In addition to the victim the prosecution examined Ikbal Ahmed (PW 2) the father of the victim girl, Mustt Hachna Khatun (PW 6) the mother of the victim girl. They are most natural witnesses and were present in the house when the accused persons entered their house and kidnapped the victim. 16. In addition to the victim the prosecution examined Ikbal Ahmed (PW 2) the father of the victim girl, Mustt Hachna Khatun (PW 6) the mother of the victim girl. They are most natural witnesses and were present in the house when the accused persons entered their house and kidnapped the victim. PW 3 Sahabuddin, who belong to the same village i.e. a co-villager of the informant and the accused, was reported about the incident by a villager and thereafter he c reached the house of PW 2 Ikbal Ahmed and came to know from him about the occurrence. PW 4 was a relative of the victim girl, who corroborated the testimony of PWs 1 and 6. 17. We have already narrated the testimony of PW 5, Dr. Tapan Paul who on clinical examination ascertained the age of the victim girl to be of 15 years. , Mr. Dey is right in pointing out that the age of the victim girl cannot be based only on mere clinical test in the absence of codification test, but the testimony of the Doctor regarding the age of the victim girl is only a supporting evidence. The parents ie PWs 2 and 6 appears to have stated on oath about the age of the victim girl and her testimony disclosed sufficient material to hold that the victim girl was about 15 years at the time of occurrence. She was at that time only a student of Class VII. The evidence on record therefore supported the prosecution version as to the age of the victim. The testimony of the witnesses unerringly pointed to the involvement of these accused persons. On consideration of the evidence on record in its entirety I do not find any reason to differ from the finding and conclusion reached by the trial court. 18. In view of the discussions made above, the conviction and sentence of imprisonment of the accused persons are upheld. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence of fine imposed by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence namely, under section 457/366 and 376 (2) (g) DPC are set aside and the remaining part of the judgment is upheld. The appeal is accordingly dismissed to the extent indicated.