JUDGMENT Ms. Kamlesh Sharma, J.—The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 9.3.2000 passed by Sessions Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba whereby he was convicted under Section 376 IPC for committing rape of his own minor daughter and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000, failing which to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant alongwith his wife and children was living at village Tunuhatti, District Chamba. On 11.3.1999 he came to his house under the State of intoxication and was served dinner by his daughter, the prosecutrix, as her mother was away to her parents-house. At about 8.30 p.m. the prosecutrix alongwith her two younger brothers slept on one bed, whereas, the appellant slept on a separate bed but after some time he came to the bed of the prosecutrix and forcibly committed sexual inter-course with her. Thereafter he gave Rs. 20/- to the prosecutrix and threatened her that if she tells the incident to anybody he would kill her. But the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother Nirmla Devi PW-12 when she returned from her parents house on 13.3.1999 in the presence of her maternal uncle, who took her to Smt. Deepa Singh, Advocate PW-10 on 15.3.1999, who filed application Ex. PJ before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dalhousie, who forwarded it to S.H.O. Police Station, Dalhousie for registration of FIR. This is how FIR No. 28/99 dated 15.3.1999 under Section 376 IPC was registered against the appellant. 3. During the trial, the prosecutrix who appeared as PW-9 and her brother Master Ganesh Datt PW-11 have fully supported the prosecution story. The prosecutrix has given her date of birth as 13.3.1986. Reiterating her complaint the prosecutrix has added that when the appellant was committing rape on her she had cried hoarse but nobody came to her rescue as the houses of other villagers are located at a distance from her house, but her brothers had woken up. She has explained that her mother had returned on 13.3.1999 which was Saturday and next day being Sunday, she alongwith her maternal uncle Joginder Singh appeared before the Magistrate at Dalhousie on Monday through a lady Advocate. She has explained that her mother had returned on 13.3.1999 which was Saturday and next day being Sunday, she alongwith her maternal uncle Joginder Singh appeared before the Magistrate at Dalhousie on Monday through a lady Advocate. Next day the police visited her house and took into possession her Salwar, shirt and bed-sheet on which she was raped by the appellant, vide seizure memos Ex. PA and PB. The prosecutrix has also stated that she was also subjected to rape by the appellant at an earlier occasion when she was studying in 5th Standard and she had not disclosed this fact to her mother or anybody else due to threats given by the appellant that he would do away with her life. In her cross-examination she has further stated that on the said occasion her mother was away to attend the marriage of her another maternal uncle. She has admitted that relations between her mother and the appellant were strained and sometimes they used to quarrel. She has also not denied the suggestion that her mother had sent her with Swami Rajeshwaranand to Haridwar for four months. 4. The brother of the prosecutrix Master Ganesh Datt PW-11 is the eye witness, who has fully corroborated the statement of the prosecutrix. Looking to his age of 12 years, before recording his statement of oath, the Sessions Judge had satisfied himself that he was able to understand the questions likely to be put to him and also the meaning of oath. According to him at about 8.30 p.m. the appellant came to their bed and committed rape upon the prosecutrix, who had cried badly but the appellant did not leave her. In cross-examination he has further stated that the prosecutrix had told him that the appellant had committed "BURA KAAM" (Rape) upon her. According to him the prosecutrix had disclosed the factum of rape to their mother on her return in the presence of her maternal uncle and grand-mother and thereafter she was taken to Dalhousie by her uncles Mama and Masaiya. Though he has admitted that his father and mother used to quarrel but has denied that he had deposed falsely at the instance of his mother. 5. Though he has admitted that his father and mother used to quarrel but has denied that he had deposed falsely at the instance of his mother. 5. The mother of the prosecutrix Nirmla Devi PW-12 has also corroborated the prosecution version that on her return the prosecutrix started weeping and complained bodyache and on her asking the reason thereof she told that the appellant had committed rape upon her in the night she had left for her parental house. Thereafter this witness narrated the incident to her brother Joginder Singh who took the prosecutrix to Dalhousie and reported the matter to the Magistrate. When the police visited her house next day she handed over the Salwar and shirt of the prosecutrix and the bedsheet on which she was raped, which were taken into possession by seizure Memos Ex. PA and PB. In cross-examination she has stated that when she came back her father and mother were with her to whom she had narrated the whole incident. She has further stated that though the appellant had come home on that day but no enquiry could be made from him as he was drunk and on the next morning he fled away from the house. She has admitted that Salwar and the shirt were kept by the prosecutrix with her other clothes after washing and there was no blood on the bedsheet. She has also admitted that the distance between her house and the Police Post is about one kilo metre. She has also admitted that the prosecutrix was sent to Haridwar with a Swami. In her re-examination she explained that she could not lodge the report soon after coming to know, about the incident as she was perplexed having come to know that her daughter was raped by her own father. 6. To prove the age of the prosecutrix, the prosecution has examined Amar Nath PW-5, Secretary Gram Panchayat, Tunuhatti, who has produced date of birth certificates Exts. PC and PD from Birth and Death Register and Pariwar Register respectively certifying the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 19.2.1986. In his cross-examination this witness has admitted that in the Birth and Death Register the name of the mother of the prosecutrix is recorded as Smt. Nirmla whereas, in the Pariwar Register it is as Guddo. PC and PD from Birth and Death Register and Pariwar Register respectively certifying the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 19.2.1986. In his cross-examination this witness has admitted that in the Birth and Death Register the name of the mother of the prosecutrix is recorded as Smt. Nirmla whereas, in the Pariwar Register it is as Guddo. This witness has also admitted that the entries in these registers are not in his hand and there is cutting in the name of the appellant in the Birth and Death Register. He has also stated that the name of the prosecutrix has been entered in the Birth and Death Register lateron on the basis of entry in the Pariwar Register. 7. Smt. Asha Suri, Headmistress, Government High School, Nainik had, where the prosecutrix was studying, has also produced certificate Ex. PH certifying her date of birth as 19.2.1986 on the basis of entry at Serial No. 1591 contained in Admission and Withdrawal Register. No question has been asked from her in cross-examination except that the said entry is not in her hand. The radiological age of the prosecutrix was also determined as less than 13 years in the report Ex. PE produced and proved by Doctor V.K. Pathak PW-6, the then Medical Officer, District Hospital Chamba. In his cross-examination this witness has admitted that the radiological age may vary by two years on either side. 8. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Doctor (Mrs.) Manju Mittal PW-13, Senior Medical Officer Civil Hospital Dalhousie, Distt. Chamba on 16.3.1999, that is, five days after the occurrence. She has produced and proved MLC Ex. PL on record. On examination of the private parts of the prosecutrix she has observed and opined as follows:— "Pubic hair not metted. No mark of any injury. Hymen absent, vagina admitted one finger easily and two fingers tight. No tenderness as examined per vagina............ In my opinion, it is difficult to give opinion about rape i.e. duration. Hymen was absent. Patient seemed to have habitual to have sexual inter-course..............Tenderness and inflamation are cured in 5 to 7 days. Kumari Poonam might have been subjected to rape/sexual inter-course 5 or 6 days back. No tenderness as examined per vagina............ In my opinion, it is difficult to give opinion about rape i.e. duration. Hymen was absent. Patient seemed to have habitual to have sexual inter-course..............Tenderness and inflamation are cured in 5 to 7 days. Kumari Poonam might have been subjected to rape/sexual inter-course 5 or 6 days back. By term habitual, I mean more than one time." In cross-examination she has stated that it is difficult to say whether the prosecutrix was raped or not and explained that habitual means "in the habit of sexual inter-course." 9. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has taken the defence of clear denial. In reply to Question No. 15 he has stated that the witnesses have deposed against him at the instance of his wife Nirmla Devi and her brother Joginder Singh because of strained relations. He claims to be innocent and falsely implicated. 10. On the appreciation of prosecution evidence the Sessions Judge has held that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed rape upon his own daughter on 11.3.1999 at 8.30 p.m. under the influence of liquor. We do not find any infirmity in these findings. The first point raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant that delay of four days in lodging FIR has not been satisfactorily explained, which raises serious doubt in the prosecution story, is without any substance. The occurrence had taken place on 11.3.1999 at 8.30 p.m. when there was nobody in the house except the prosecutrix, who was a minor girl, and her two younger brothers and it was not expected of her to report the matter to anyone either during night or the next day in the wake of threats from the appellant, who had been proved worst than animal by making his own daughter prey of his lust. She had no alternative but to wait for the return of her mother on 13.3.1999 to whom she reported at the earliest, who in turn took her brother Joginder Singh into confidence, who took the prosecutrix to Dalhousie and filed complaint before the Magistrate through a lady Lawyer Smt. Deepa Singh on 15.3.1999 as 14.3.1999 was Sunday. 11. By now it is well settled that delay in sexual offences is not material if it is explained and the explanation is natural in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. By now it is well settled that delay in sexual offences is not material if it is explained and the explanation is natural in the facts and circumstances of the case. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others, AIR 1996 SC 1393, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court have observed in paragraph 7 that :— "....The Courts cannot over-look the fact that in sexual offences delay in the lodging of 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....." (Also see : Prithi Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1989 SC 702). 12. Next argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the medical evidence has not corroborated the commission of rape upon the prosecutrix which also raises doubt in the prosecution story. No doubt Doctor (Mrs.) Manju Mittal has shown her inability to opine about the duration between the commission of offence and the medical examination of the prosecutrix but in the next breath she has admitted that the prosecutrix might have been subjected to rape/sexual inter-course 5 or 6 days before, which tallies with the prosecution case, as she was medically examined on 16.3.1999, whereas, the occurrence took place on 11.3.1999. According to this witness tenderness and inflamation are cured in 5 to 7 days, that is why she did not find any external mark or injury of commission of offence of rape on the person of the prosecutrix. Learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to take advantage of the statement of the Doctor that the vagina of the prosecutrix admitted one finger easily and two fingers tightly and she was habitual of sexual inter-course forgetting that it supports the version of the prosecutrix that she had been subjected to sexual inter-course for more than once by the appellant, and for the first time when she was studying in the 5th standard. Otherwise, by now it is well settled that the testimony of the prosecutrix need not be corroborated if it inspires confidence. Otherwise, by now it is well settled that the testimony of the prosecutrix need not be corroborated if it inspires confidence. In State of Rajasthan v. N.K. the Accused, (2000) 5 SCC 30, learned Judges of the Supreme Court have held in paragraph 11:— "11. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness; a high degree of probability having been shown to exist in view of the subject-matter being a criminal charge. However, if the court of facts may find it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice would do. Reference may be had to a long chain of decisions, some of which are Rameshwar v. State of Rajas than, AIR 1952 SC 54; Sidheshwar Ganguly v. State of W.B., AIR 1958 SC 143; Madho Ram v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 533; State of Maharashtra v. Chandra prakash Kewalachand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550; Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey, (1992) 3 SCC 204; State of Rajasthan v. Narayan, (1992) 3 SCC 615; Karnel Singh v. State of M.P, (1995) 5 SCC 518; Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty, (1996) 1 SCC 490 and Gurmeet Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384. We may quote from the last of the abovesaid decisions where the rule for appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix in such cases has been succinctly summed up in the following words: (SCC p. 403, para 21) "If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires 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. 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." 13. So far the case in hand is concerned, not only the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence but also it is duly corroborated by her younger brother Master Ganesh Datt PW-11, who had witnessed his father committing the brutal act of ravishing his own daughter. From the other facts and circumstances on record including the statement of Nirmla Devi, the mother of the prosecutrix, the only hypothesis is made out that it was the appellant who had raped the prosecutrix, his own minor daughter. So far the findings that the age of the prosecutrix was about 13 years at the time of commission of offence are concerned, the learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to assail them on any ground. 14. Lastly, learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to strained relations between him and his wife Nirmla Devi PW-12, as stated by him in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. This argument has also been raised to be rejected. Howsoever strained relations between them might be, no wife would stake the honour and future of her own minor daughter and falsely implicate her husband in the commission of offence of rape upon his own daughter. The sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000 awarded to the appellant for the commission of offence under Section 376 IPC is also just and reasonable and does not call for any interference. 15. The result of above discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. However, we place on record our appreciation for the assistance given by Shri Baldev Singh, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant. Criminal appeal dismissed. -