JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—In Session Trial No. l-S/7 of 2000, Daulat Ram (A-l) was tried on charges under Section 363 read with Section 34 and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code whereas his co-accused Deep Ram (A-2) was tried on charges under Section 363 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 366-A IPC. On trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla found A-l guilty of the offence under Section 363 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 363 IPC with fine of Rs, 2,000; in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. He was also sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000 under Section 376 IPC. In default of payment of fine, A-1 shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. A-2 was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 363 IPC with fine of Rs. 2,000. In default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Under Section 366-A IPC, A-2 was sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo six months simple imprisonment. All these sentences imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall run concurrently. If the amount of fine was realized from the accused persons, a sum of Rs. 10,000 was ordered to be paid to the prosecutrix. Both the accused persons have preferred this appeal challenging their convictions and sentences. 2. According to the prosecution, Ramesh Chand (PW-4) and A-2 are the cousin brothers of the prosecutrix R (real name with held by us) (PW-3). They are all residents of village Kayari, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla. A-l is the resident of village, Khokha, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla and he! is the son of maternal uncle of A-2. Hari Singh deceased was the father of the prosecutrix. At the time of death of the parents of the prosecutrix her age was about two years and the age of her brother Joginder was about four years. After the death of their parents, the prosecutrix and her brother started residing in the house of their uncle Kali Ram father of PW-4. At the time of death of the parents of the prosecutrix her age was about two years and the age of her brother Joginder was about four years. After the death of their parents, the prosecutrix and her brother started residing in the house of their uncle Kali Ram father of PW-4. Kali Ram also expired and thereafter the prosecutrix and her brother were under the guardianship of their cousin brother PW-4 and his wife Smt. Bimla Devi who brought up and looked after them. PW-4 also constructed a small room for their residence. It was the prosecution case that A-2 had entertained some grudge against the father of the prosecutrix and, therefore, after his death he started threatening the prosecutrix and her brother. A-2 threatened the prosecutrix to get her married with his cousin brother A-l. On 19.9.1999, A-l came to the village of the prosecutrix and A-2 and stayed with him for a night. On 20.9.1999 prosecutrix was not found in her room where she had resided with her brother on the previous night. PW Ramesh Chand and his wife Bimla Devi tried to search the prosecutrix in nearby villages and other places of their relations, but their efforts remained unsuccessful. It was on 28.9.1999, when PW-4 went to the police station, Chopal and lodged formal First Information Report (Ext. PW-4/A) at about 9 a.m. inter alia, stating that he was confident that both the accused persons must have induced the prosecutrix a minor girl to accompany them out of his guardianship, without his consent and he also apprehended that the prosecutrix might be forced or seduced to illicit inter-course or she might be forced to marry A-l. 3. On the basis of the said FIR Sub-Inspector Shri Vidhi Chand (PW-12), Police Station, Chopal (PW-12) started investigation of the case. He associated PW-4, one Relu Ram and some more persons and raided the house of Smt. Phulma Devi (PW-5) at village Khokha on 28.9.1999. The prosecutrix was recovered from the house of PW Smt. Phulma Devi and was entrusted in the custody of her cousin brother PW-4 and brother Joginder. Dari (a piece of cotton mattress) (Ext. P-2) stated to have been found spread over the floor of the room in the house of PW-5 and used for sleeping purpose by the prosecutrix jointly with A-l and Salwar (Ext. Dari (a piece of cotton mattress) (Ext. P-2) stated to have been found spread over the floor of the room in the house of PW-5 and used for sleeping purpose by the prosecutrix jointly with A-l and Salwar (Ext. P-3) worn by the prosecutrix were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer in the presence of PW-4 Joginder and Relu Ram vide recovery memo (Ext. PW-3/B). Both the articles were sealed with seal impression "A" and the seal after use was handed over to Relu Ram. 4. During the investigation of the case, the prosecutrix was taken to Civil Hospital, Chopal on 28.9.1999, but she could not be medically examined as there was no lady doctor available in the hospital at Chopal. On 29.9.1999 the police brought the prosecutrix to Dindayal Upadhyaya Hospital (D.D.U. Hospital) where she was medically examined by Dr. Ambika Chauhan (PW-1). Dr. Ambika Chauhan took swab from outside vagina, post fourchette, cutting of pubic hair, salwar and shirt of the prosecutrix. On packing and sealing the parcels of those articles, they were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. Dr. Ambika Chauhan prepared medico-legal certificate (Ext. PW-1/A). According to opinion of Dr. Ambika Chauhan, there had been penetration of vagina of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was referred to Dental Department and Radiologist for ascertaining her age. 5. PW-2 Dr. D. Suman Gupta, Radiologist DDU, Hospital, Shimla took X-ray of elbow joints; Shoulder joints, wrist joints, Pelvis, Knee joint and Ankle joints of the prosecutrix marked Exts. PW-2/A to PW-2/F respectively. On the basis of the X-ray reports, the prosecutrixs skeleton age was found between 10 to 14 years. PW-7 Dr. Prakriti Mahajan, Dental Surgeon, DDU Hospital, Shimla also medically examined the prosecutrix on 30.9.1999 for determining her dental age. On the basis of X-ray report, Dr. Mahajan prepared medico-legal certificate (Ext. PW-7/A) and the dental age of the prosecutrix opined was between 10 to 12 years. The Investigating Officer prepared site plan (Ext. PW-12/A) of the house of PW-5 Phulma Devi from where the prosecutrix was recovered. He also prepared site plan (Ext. PW-12/2) of the location of village Kiari from where the prosecutrix was allegedly kidnapped by both the accused persons. He recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses and arrested both the accused who were also got medically examined from PW-8 Dr. S.L. Chauhan, Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Chopal. He also prepared site plan (Ext. PW-12/2) of the location of village Kiari from where the prosecutrix was allegedly kidnapped by both the accused persons. He recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses and arrested both the accused who were also got medically examined from PW-8 Dr. S.L. Chauhan, Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Chopal. On receipt of Chemical Examiners report (Ext PW-12/D) the investigation was completed and Police report under Section 173 Cr. PC. was submitted before the judicial Magistrate, Chopal against both the accused persons alleging the commission of the aforesaid offences. The Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, who in turn entrusted the trial of the case to the Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla. 6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and placed on record various documents to substantiate its case against the accused persons. Both the accused persons in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. have admitted in reply to question No. 2 that the parents of the prosecutrix had passed away in the year 1990 and she along with her brother Joginder Singh was being looked after and maintained by her cousin PW-4 Ramesh Chand at the time of taking place of the incident. In reply to other questions, they have either denied the same or have shown lack of knowledge. However, they have admitted their medical examination conducted by PW Dr. S.L. Chauhan. Their defence plea was that they have been implicated falsely by the Police in this case at the instance of PW Ramesh Chand who is inimical towards A-2 because of some dispute about the land with the father of A-2 and since A-l is the cousin brother of A-2, hence he has also been involved in this case. They have pleaded their innocence. However, no defence evidence was led by them. 7. On appraisal and analysis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court found both the accused guilty of above said offences and they were accordingly convicted and sentenced. Now the accused persons have challenged the correctness and validity of their convictions and sentences in this appeal. 8. We have heard Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of accused and Mr. K.D. Batish, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. Now the accused persons have challenged the correctness and validity of their convictions and sentences in this appeal. 8. We have heard Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of accused and Mr. K.D. Batish, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. The learned Senior Advocate firstly contended that there was delay of eight days in lodging the FIR by PW-4 Ramesh Chand which has cast suspicion about the correctness and truthfulness of the prosecution case. It is no doubt true that the occurrence took place on 20.9.1999 and the First Information Report (Ext. PW-4/A) was lodged by PW-4 on 28.9.1999 at Police Station, Chopal. It is in the evidence of PW-4 that when on 20.9.1999 he found the prosecutrix missing from the house where she was living with her brother Joginder, he made efforts for her search in the surrounding villages but she could not be traced out. A-2 is his cousin brother and A-l is the son of the maternal uncle of A-2. A-l came to the village of the prosecutrix on 19.9.1999 and stayed during the night at the house of A-2 and both of them were also found missing on 20.9.1999 along with the prosecutrix. The explanation for delay in lodging the FIR has been given by PW-4 from whose guardianship the prosecutrix was kidnapped by the accused persons who is admittedly a minor girl. PW-4 had tried to trace out the whereabouts of the prosecutrix from the villagers of the nearby villages and when he could not locate her, he was left with no option but to lodge the First Information Report. He also visited the houses of her close relations and when he inquired about the whereabouts of the accused persons, he came to know that they \\££re also found missing from their respective houses. It was because of these reasons that he suspected the accused persons involved in kidnapping the prosecutrix by giving her allurement of marriage with A-l without his consent being guardian of the prosecutrix. In the teeth of the evidence of PW-4 we find that the delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the case of the prosecution which in our view has been satisfactorily explained. The first information report given by him cannot, therefore, be said to be grossly delayed as to excite suspicion. In the teeth of the evidence of PW-4 we find that the delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the case of the prosecution which in our view has been satisfactorily explained. The first information report given by him cannot, therefore, be said to be grossly delayed as to excite suspicion. The plea of the accused persons that the FIR lodged by PW-4 was due to his inimical relations with A-2 cannot be accepted being a ground for implicating the accused persons falsely in the present case. The accused persons have not placed on record an iota of evidence to corroborate their defence version that since PW-4 was inimical towards them, therefore, he has lodged false complaint against them involving the conduct, reputation and virgin character of the prosecutrix who is his cousin sister living under his care and custody. PW-4 and his wife Smt. Bimla Devi have brought up and maintained the prosecutrix when she was hardly aged about two years at the time of the death of her parents. We are not persuaded to accept the contention that delay in lodging the FIR was fatal to the prosecution case. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1393, their Lordships have held that in sexual offences, delay in lodging the FIR can be due to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to the police and complain about the incident which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of her family. It is only after giving it a cool thought that a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged. It was further observed that even if there is some delay in lodging the FIR in respect of offence of rape, if it is properly explained and the explanation is natural in the facts and circumstances of the case, such delay would not matter. 9. It was further observed that even if there is some delay in lodging the FIR in respect of offence of rape, if it is properly explained and the explanation is natural in the facts and circumstances of the case, such delay would not matter. 9. The second contention of the learned Senior Counsel was that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt as the material witnesses, namely, Joginder Singh brother of the prosecutrix; Relu Ram in whose presence the prosecutrix was allegedly recovered from the house of PW Phulma and Smt. Bimla wife of PW-4 were not examined to unfold the true facts of the case and therefore, non-examination of the said persons is fatal to the prosecution case as the other evidence relied upon by the trial Court is unreliable and unbelievable and the conviction of the accused persons deserves to be set aside. We do not find any force in this contention. It is well settled proposition of law that it is not incumbent upon the prosecution to examine each and every witness so as to multiply witnesses and burden the record. Where the evidence of the victim of rape does not suffer from any infirmity and could be relied upon without proper corroboration, it is not incumbent upon the prosecution to examine the above said persons. In Bir Singh and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 59, it has been held that where all the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution had serious animus against the accused and were interested in implicating the accused and neither independent witnesses were examined nor any reasonable explanation was given by the prosecution, the Court would be justified in drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution. In Ishwar Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 2423, it was again said that witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution was based must be examined. In Ishwar Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 2423, it was again said that witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution was based must be examined. Where some of the eye-witnesses to the occurrence named in the FIR who were important witnesses for the unfolding of the prosecution case were kept back without giving any explanation, the non-examination of these witnesses will acquire a special significance in view of the discrepancy between the FIR and the version of the occurrence given by the prosecution in Court and the Court has to take into account these circumstances in considering the probabilities of the case. We have considered the contention of the accused persons in the light of the observations made by their Lordships in the above referred to judgments. In the case on hand, it is no doubt true that Joginder Singh, Smt. Bimla Devi and Relu Ram were not examined by the prosecution as being unnecessary and repetitive whereas one Sweti Devi was left out from examination being win-over by the accused persons as per the statement of the public prosecutor made on 20.5.2000 as found recorded on the case file. Non-examination of the above said three persons cannot be said to be a serious ground for discrediting the other reliable and acceptable evidence connecting both the accused involved in the crime. Joginder Singh brother of the prosecutrix is also a minor aged about 14 years at the time of the occurrence. PW-4" deposed that the parents of the prosecutrix and her brother Joginder Singh had died in the year 1990 and thereafter they started living with him and he has been maintaining them. On 20.9.1999 he found the prosecutrix missing from the house. It has come in the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-3) that she used to reside in the house,of her uncle Kalia father of her cousin brother PW Ramesh Chand. After the death of her uncle Kalia, it was her cousin PW-4 and his wife Smt. Bimla who have been looking after her and her minor brother Joginder Singh. A-2 is also her cousin being son of her uncle Maun Ram. She deposed that A-2 was not happy about her residing with her cousin brother PW Ramesh Chand as he was interested that she should reside with him. She has given the narration of the occurrence in detail. A-2 is also her cousin being son of her uncle Maun Ram. She deposed that A-2 was not happy about her residing with her cousin brother PW Ramesh Chand as he was interested that she should reside with him. She has given the narration of the occurrence in detail. She stated that on 20.9.1999 she woke up in the morning and went outside her house for answering the call of nature where A-2 met her oil the way accompanied by A-l, a resident of village Khokha. The evidence of the prosecutrix and PW Ramesh Chand is found reliable and believable to connect the accused persons with the commission of the offences and there is no cogent reason to disbelieve and discard their testimony which has been rightly appreciated by the trial Court. Non-examination of Joginder Singh and Smt. Bimla Devi is not fatal to the prosecution case as both of them were not eyewitnesses of the occurrence. The recovery of the prosecutrix from the house of PW-5 Smt. Phulma Devi is also not in dispute and she has admitted the said fact though she has turned hostile to the prosecution. The recovery memo (Ext. PW-3/A) has been proved by PW Ramesh Chand and PW Bidhi Chand Investigating Officer. This contention on behalf of the accused is also unsustainable. 10. The third contention of the learned Senior Counsel was that the best evidence to establish the correct age of the prosecutrix was the school certificate and copy of extract from the Births and Deaths Register maintained by the Panchayat and since the prosecution has with-held the true record and therefore, the other evidence relied upon by the trial Court about the age of the prosecutrix is not reliable and the finding recorded on the said evidence is not tenable. As regards the age of the prosecutrix there is evidence of PW Ramesh Chand who has given date of birth of the prosecutrix as 1.1.1987. In a copy of Family Register marked Ext. PW-6/ A maintained by Gram Panchayat Sarahan and produced on record by PW-6 Kartar Singh Secretary, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 1.1.1987 at serial No. 262/63. In a copy of Family Register marked Ext. PW-6/ A maintained by Gram Panchayat Sarahan and produced on record by PW-6 Kartar Singh Secretary, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 1.1.1987 at serial No. 262/63. It has come in the cross-examination of PW Kartar Singh Secretary, that as per Government instruction every Panchayat has to maintain the Births and Deaths Register separately since 1985 and in their Panchayat the said register was being maintained after 1999. No register from the year 1987 was available in their Panchayat and prior to 1990 the entries with respect to Births and Deaths used to be entered in the Pariwar register which was produced by him before the trial Court. There is evidence of PW-2 Dr. Suman Gupta who has examined the prosecutrix after taking note of her physical features and found her skeleton age between 10 to 14 years. Dr. Suman has emphatically denied the suggestion of the accused person that the age of the victim was more than 16 years. Dr. PW Prakriti Mahajan, Dental Surgeon also supported the oral evidence of PW Ramesh Chand; copy of family register (Ext. PW-6/A) and the evidence of PW-2 Dr. Suman Gupta, Radiologist, Dr. Prakriti Mahajan opined the dental age of the prosecutrix between 10 to 12 years. In his cross-examination, he admitted that there could be margin of two years on the higher side. Therefore, on the overwhelming evidence on record, in all probabilities the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the occurrence was about 14 years. It is no doubt true that the prosecutrix was studying in Government Primary School Deemo and her birth certificate from the school has not been produced by the prosecution. But in the teeth of the other consistent and convincing evidence stated hereinabove, the prosecutrix is rightly held to be a minor below 16 years of age by the trial Court and we are also of the considered view that at the time of the occurrence the age of the prosecutrix was about 14 years. The trial Court also found the age of the prosecutrix about 12-13 years and before recording her statement on oath she was asked some questions to test her wisdom and capacity to understand them which she answered satisfactorily. This contention, therefore, raised is simply to be rejected. 11. The trial Court also found the age of the prosecutrix about 12-13 years and before recording her statement on oath she was asked some questions to test her wisdom and capacity to understand them which she answered satisfactorily. This contention, therefore, raised is simply to be rejected. 11. The learned Senior Counsel next contended that there are material discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of PW-4 made by him in FIR (Ext. PW-4/A) and deposition before the court and therefore, the prosecution case is not free from doubt involving the accused persons by him in a false case and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused persons. Learned Senior Counsel has referred to the statement made by PW-4 in the FIR wherein it was stated that AW-2 bore some malice against him and used to threaten his cousin brother Joginder and the prosecutrix not to let the orphans settle down in their lives and also to get the prosecutrix married with A-l, but in his cross-examination PW-4 has admitted that A-2 never told him prior to 1999 that he was interested to get the prosecutrix married to A-l nor the prosecutrix ever told him this arrangement prior to 28.9.1999. In his deposition PW-4 has emphatically denied that he made the statement in the FIR that the prosecutrix told either to him, his wife or Joginder Singh and others that A-2 wanted to marry her with A-l as recorded in portion A to A of FIR (Ext. PW-4/A). This portion of contradiction appearing in the FIR and deposition of PW-4 in the court in our view is not so material and significant to discard the other positive, reliable and convincing evidence of PW-4 and the prosecutrix about the commission of the offences by the accused persons. Jhe ratio of the judgment in Bandi Mallaiah and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1160, relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the accused persons is not attracted nor it is of any assistance to them. Jhe ratio of the judgment in Bandi Mallaiah and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1160, relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the accused persons is not attracted nor it is of any assistance to them. In that case their lordships found omission of the names of two accused in the statement of PW-11 recorded by the 1st Class Magistrate in the hospital who according to the case of the prosecution led the attack upon the victim, besides some other important contradictions were also noticed by the apex Court in the evidence of material witnesses of the prosecution and on the re-assessment of the entire evidence, the prosecution case was not found reliable to connect the accused persons in the commission of the offence of murder. Here, in this case, the evidence appearing against the accused is clinching and acceptable. 12. The learned Senior Counsel then contended that no offence of rape allegedly committed by A-l has been proved by the prosecution in the present case and therefore, A-l has been wrongly convicted by the trial Court in view of the deposition of PW-5 Smt. Phulma Devi. It is no doubt, true that PW-5 has resiled from her earlier statement recorded by the Police during the investigation. It has come in her evidence that A-l is her nephew whereas A-2 is her Bhanja (maternal uncles son). She has stated that the parents of the prosecutrix had died when she was a child. According to her the prosecutrix on the 28th day of the month came to her house alone on her own- When she was confronted by learned P.P. with her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she has admitted in her cross-examination that the prosecutrix remained in her house for 6-7 days. She has admitted the recovery of the prosecutrix by the Police from her house and the recovery of Dari and one salwar of her daughter. The learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the deposition of PW-5 who has stated that A-l never came to her house during the time the prosecutrix stayed there nor he has ever committed any sexual inter-course with the prosecutrix in her house as the prosecutrix used to sleep with her daughter during the night time. The learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on the report Ext. The learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on the report Ext. PW-12/D of the Assistant Director Bio and Serum Science Block State Forensic Science Laboratory, Himachal Pradesh, Junga in which no blood was found on the salwar taken into possession by the Police from the house of PW-5 nor semen was found on Dari on which the prosecutrix and the daughter of PW-5 used to sleep during the night to connect A-l with the commission of the offence of rape. He has also referred to the statement of prosecutrix in which she has stated that there is only one room and one kitchen in the house of PW-5 where they used to sleep together in one room of the house and in such situation, according to the learned Senior Counsel, it was not possible for A to A-l to commit rape upon the prosecutrix in the presence of PW-5 and her grown-up daughter. To appreciate the contention of learned Senior Counsel we have minutely examined and analyzed the evidence of the prosecutrix who is a minor belonging to scheduled caste category. In her deposition, she has stated that on 20.9.1999, A-2 her cousin brother in the company of A-l met her when she was going for answering the call of nature. A-2 told her that her brother who was sleeping with her in the room, had suddenly fallen seriously ill and had been taken to the Hospital at Chopal in a bus. She also stated that A-2 told her that her brother Joginder asked him to bring her to Hospital in the company of A-2. She believed the version of A-2 as true and accompanied both the accused persons to Chopal. When they reached at Chopal, she asked both the accused persons to take her to her ailing brother, but A-2 told her that her brother was neither ill nor he as brought to Chopal and she was enticed by them with sole purpose to solemnize her marriage with A-1 at his native place Khokha. She was directed by A-2 to accompany A-l to the said village to solemnize the marriage with A-l and in case she failed to do so, she was threatened to be given beatings by him. She was directed by A-2 to accompany A-l to the said village to solemnize the marriage with A-l and in case she failed to do so, she was threatened to be given beatings by him. She refused to exceed to the threat of A-2 and told him that she wanted to go back to her native place but she was again threatened by A-2 that in case she would go back to her house she would be given beatings by him. Thereafter both the accused persons had taken her to village Khokha to the house of PW-5 who is the aunt of A-l. When they reached at the house of PW-5, A-2 told PW-5 that he had solemnized the marriage of the prosecutrix with A-l and A-l had also proclaimed himself to be her husband. She was made to stay by A-l in the house of PW-5 upto 28.9.1999. On 28.9.1999 the police came to the house of PW-5 accompanied by her cousin brother PW-4 and her brother Joginder Singh. She was recovered from the house of PW-5 and was handed over in Supurdari to her cousin brother PW-4. She categorically stated that A-l for the first time once assaulted her sexually on the next day of her arrival in the house of PW-5 during the night time. Thereafter also after a gap of a day or two he again committed sexual inter-course with her. She has identified the Dari (Ext. P-2) and her salwar (Ext. P-3) which were taken into possession by the Police. The prosecutrix has unequivocally stated that a separate room was given to her and her brother Joginder Singh by PW-4 after the death of their parents for their residence. On 19.9.1999 she alongwith her brother Joginder Singh slept in the said room. Her brother was ill on that day. She asked A-2 to apprise her cousin brother PW-4 about the serious illness of her brother so that PW-4 could also accompany her to Chopal, but A-2 told her as no time was left to go to the house of PW-4 because the bus was about to leave the village immediately and that her brother had also called her immediately to the hospital of Chopal. In a suggestion put to her by the accused, the prosecutrix has stated that she could not disclose to unknown person at Chopal that the accused persons had brought her there under the pretext of illness of her brother who was brought to Civil Hospital Chopal. It is in her evidence that A-l during her stay in the house of PW-5 used to leave the house early in the morning and had been coming back daily in the evening. She categorically stated that on the very first day she disclosed to PW-5 that she was brought there forcibly and playing fraud upon her by both the accused. She deposed that A-l threatened her with dire consequences if she tried to run away from the house of PW-5 or to disclose to any person that she was kidnapped by them and concealed in the house of PW 5. She also stated that she did not disclose to PW-5 and her daughter Kanta that A-l had subjected her to sexual intercourse as she was apprehending that by doing so, A-l would give beatings to her. She tried to raise hue and cry on the first day when she was subjected to sexual inter-course by A-l, but he gagged her mouth. She denied the suggestion of the accused persons that a false case has been registered against them at the instance of her cousin brother PW Ramesh Chand. From the re-appraisal and re-assessment of the evidence of the prosecutrix, we find her a truthful witness. Her evidence is reliable, cogent, convincing and acceptable to connect both the accused persons in the commission of the offences. She has been enticed away by both the accused and A-l forcibly raped her in the house of PW-5. Her testimony is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. PW Dr. Ambika Chauhan has opined that there was penetration and hymen was ruptured, swollen, red in colour and tender on touch. The vagina admitted one finger. The learned Senior Advocate contended that the fact that no injury on any part of the person of the prosecutrix nor any sign of struggle has been found by Dr. Ambika Chauhan, would go to show that the prosecutrix has not been raped by A-l. The contention that the salwar (Ext. P-3) recovered from the house of PW-5 belonged to her daughter is also unsustainable. Ambika Chauhan, would go to show that the prosecutrix has not been raped by A-l. The contention that the salwar (Ext. P-3) recovered from the house of PW-5 belonged to her daughter is also unsustainable. It is clear and specific version of the prosecutrix that the salwar (Ext. P-3) taken into possession by the Police from the house of PW-5 belongs to her. In the report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Ext. PW-12/D), human semen was found on the salwar of the prosecutrix. On Dari (Ext. P-2) human blood was found. PW-8 Dr. S.L. Chauhan medically examined both the accused persons on 6.10.1999 when they were arrested by the Investigating Officer and both of them were found capable of performing sexual inter-course. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. lekh Raj and another, (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 247, it has been held that in the absence of any ulterior motive for falsely implicating the accused, the testimony of the victim of rape corroborated by medical evidence shall be accepted. Minor discrepancy or variance in evidence does not make the prosecutions case doubtful if the evidence of the victim of rape is found to be reliable and acceptable. In State of Rajasthan v. N.K., (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 30, their lordships have held as under:— ".....For the offence of rape as defined in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, the sexual inter-course should have been against the will of the woman or without the consent. Consent is immaterial in certain circumstances covered by the clauses thirdly to sixthly, the last one being when the woman is under 16 years of age. If she be of 16 years of age or above, her consent cannot be presumed; an inference as to consent can be drawn if only based on evidence or probabilities of the case. The victim of rape stating on oath that she was forcibly subjected to sexual inter-course or that the act was done without her consent, has to be believed and accepted like any other testimony unless there is material available to draw an inference as to her consent or else the testimony of prosecutrix be such as would be inherently improbable. The victim of rape stating on oath that she was forcibly subjected to sexual inter-course or that the act was done without her consent, has to be believed and accepted like any other testimony unless there is material available to draw an inference as to her consent or else the testimony of prosecutrix be such as would be inherently improbable. The absence of visible marks of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix on the date of her medical examination would not necessarily mean that she had not suffered any injuries or that she had offered no resistance at the time of commission of the crime. Absence of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix is not necessarily an evidence of falsity of the allegation or an evidence of consent on the part of the prosecutrix. It will all depend on the facts and circumstances of each case." 13. In the present case there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix who would not ordinarily subscribe to a false story of sexual assault involving her and thereby putting at stake the reputation of the family. Upon an evaluation of the evidence available on record it must be held that the prosecutrix is a witness of truth. Her testimony inspires confidence. The medical evidence available on record lends assurance to her testimony. The trial Court has rightly held that sexual assault amounting to rape was committed on her by A-l. In the teeth of the evidence of the prosecutrix corroborated by the medical evidence, the absence of injury on the person of the prosecutrix would not necessarily be an evidence of falsity of the allegation as projected by the accused persons. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mange Ram, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2798, their lordships have held as under: ".....The plea that the absence of the spermatozoa in the clothes worn by the prosecutrix and the fact that the accused had also indicated that there was no sexual act, the act of the accused at the most would have been only an attempt to outrage the modesty of the girl would not be tenable." 14. The findings recorded by the trial Court in the present case are based upon proper and sound appreciation of the evidence and we find no tengible reason to differ with them. The findings recorded by the trial Court in the present case are based upon proper and sound appreciation of the evidence and we find no tengible reason to differ with them. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Rahim Beg v. State of U.R, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 343, and decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in Paramjit Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1986 Sim. L.C. 216 are of no assistance to the accused persons nor they are applicable in the facts and circumstance of the case on hand. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1393, their Lordships observed:— "7. The testimony of victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict and accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The Court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost at par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It must not be over looked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another persons lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable." Their Lordships further held : "20. Of late, crime women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. It is an irony that while we are celebrating womens rights in all spheres, we show little or no concern for her honour. It is a sad reflection on the attitude of indifference of ihe society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes. We must remember that a rapist not only violates the victims privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. The Courts, therefore, shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspries confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspries confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the Court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial Court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations." 15. In the light of the above settled proposition of law by the apex Court and on re-examination of the entire material on record, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against both the accused beyond reasonable doubt and we do not find any merit in this appeal. 16. Mr. G.D, Verma, learned Senior Advocate for the accused persons lastly contended that looking to the family background/ relationship of the accused with the prosecutrix and their tender age, the sentences imposed by the trial Court upon the accused persons may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. We are not inclined to accept this contention. Both the accused are aged about 19 years as stated by them in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C by the trial Court on 19.6.2000. The prosecutrix was a minor girl aged about 14 years at the time of the occurrence. She was enticed away by both the accused persons from her village with intention to force her to illicit inter-course. A-2 is her cousin brother who wanted to get her married to A-l his maternal uncles son. The prosecutrix was under the care and lawful guardianship of her cousin brother PW Ramesh Chand after the death of her parents. The manner in which she was kidnapped in the early morning of 20.9.1999 and the circumstances in which she was concealed in the house of PW Smt. Phulma Devi for eight days where she was forcibly sexually assaulted by A-l, are sufficient material circumstances to maintain the sentences imposed upon both the accused persons by .the trial Court. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. The convictions and sentences awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to both the accused persons are affirmed. Appeal dismissed. -