JUDGMENT (Arun Kumar Goel, J.) :- This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamsala in Sessions Case No.l7-N/96 dated 22.12.1997. By means of impugned judgment, appellant has been found guilty having committed offences under Section 341 and 376IPC. He has been convicted and setenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment whereof he has been directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. At the same time, he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days for having committed offence under Section 314 IPC. In the event of recovery of fine, a sum of Rs.800/- shall be paid to the prosecutrix and the period during the course of investigation, inquiry or trial, shall be set off under Section 428 Cr. P. C. Substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. As per prosecution case on 1.7.1995, Kumari Monika (PW-5) was on her way to school at about 7.30 AM, when on the said date and time, appellant committed rape of her. Thus, he was charged under Sections 341/376 1PC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. With a view to bring home the guilty against the appellant, prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses. 3. Prosecution case as revealed from its evidence was that on the fateful day the prosecutrix was on her way to school from village Indpur to Indora. for going to school, she had to cover part of distance on foot and thereafter she used to board the bus. From her home, when she was on her way to the motor road to catch the bus, she was caught hold of by the appellant and taken to bushes. She raised alaram and cries, but none came to her rescue. According to her, accused held out that he wanted to marry her. She was laid on the ground which was grassy and then was ravished by the appellant against her wish not once but thrice despite her having resisted and having caused scratches wherever she could with her hands and nails on the body of the appellant. Instead of going to school, she returned to her residence at 1.30 PM. She was laid on the ground which was grassy and then was ravished by the appellant against her wish not once but thrice despite her having resisted and having caused scratches wherever she could with her hands and nails on the body of the appellant. Instead of going to school, she returned to her residence at 1.30 PM. Before leaving she held out that she would narrate the incident to her family members whe the appellant held out that it will bring a bad name to her. 4. Prosecutrix on reaching home informed her mother her clothes were found blood-stained. She felt pain in her vagina and blood that came out at the time of rape was cleaned by the appellant with her underwear. They went to Police Station at 5 PM on the same day and lodged the report, Ext.PW-4/A. It was signed by her as well as her mother Rita Rani (PW-4). She was taken to Indora hospital, but because of non-availability of lady doctor, she could not be medically examined on that day. She returned to her house with her mother. On the next day, police came to her house, her maternal uncle and other villagers were also co-associated. Photographs of the.spot were taken. Underwear found at the spot was also taken into possession by the police. 5. She was taken to Civil Hospital, Nurpur, but lady doctor was not available there also. So, she was got examined at Zonal Hospital, Dharamsala on the same day. Her clothes were taken into custody which are Exts. P-l to P-4. She was X-rayed. 6. When a reference is made to her cross-examination, so far her____________________having been seen sexually abused by the appellant is concerned has remained unshaken. She also denied the suggestion that she was in love with the appellant. In fact, when her statement is read as a whole, she has stood the ground regarding her having been taken to bushes by the appellant and then having been raped by him thrice. 7. As per statement of her mother, Rita Rani (PW-4), on l .7.1995, her daughter had gone to attend the school at Indoraat 7.30 AM. when she came back at 2.00 PM, she informed she was ravished by the appellant. She found that the clothes of her daughter were stained with blood. 7. As per statement of her mother, Rita Rani (PW-4), on l .7.1995, her daughter had gone to attend the school at Indoraat 7.30 AM. when she came back at 2.00 PM, she informed she was ravished by the appellant. She found that the clothes of her daughter were stained with blood. She narrated the entire-incident to the villagers when Pradhan of Gram Panchayat adivsed that the matter be reported to the police. On the same day, she went to Police Station and reported the matter vide Ext. PW-4/A. 8. According to this witness, spot was shown to the police. Her daughter could not be examined firstly at Indora and then at Nurpur. At both these places, no lady doctor was available. Thus, the prosecutrix was examined are Zonal Hospital, Dharamsala. School uniform was taken into possession and is Exts. P-1 to P-4. Again nothing could be extracted in her cross-examination so as to dislodge her statement in material aspects of the case. PW-1, Dr. T.K. Roy, Block Medical Officer, Indora examined the appellant on 2.7.1995after he was taken into custody by the police. He found the following injuries on his examination:- "1. There was few hairs on chin and moustache region. Hairs grown sternal region and axillary region were good, but pubic region hair trimmed. 2. There was an abrasion on the back of left pinna of size 1 cm x 0.5 cm on red colour. 3. There was denture mark abrasion on the front of left shoulder, 3 cm apart at the centre of dark red colour. 4. There was a liner abrasion on the left side chest placed longi tudinally from second rib to 5th rib on chest 7 cm long of dark red colour. 5. The penis was well grown. Both testicales were normal in size and were in sacrotal said. There was no smegma present and there was abrasion on the back of g|ans penis near fremum of size 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm of dark red colour. There was no discharge from the penis. 6. There was no external injury around the scrotum and thigh and no mud/blood or foreign bondy was found in the body. 7. The person had worn underwear, but at the time of examination she had no worn the same-one." 9. He issued the medico-legal certificate (Ext .PW- 1/B). There was no discharge from the penis. 6. There was no external injury around the scrotum and thigh and no mud/blood or foreign bondy was found in the body. 7. The person had worn underwear, but at the time of examination she had no worn the same-one." 9. He issued the medico-legal certificate (Ext .PW- 1/B). He stated that on 1.7.1995, prosecutrix could not be examined because there was no lady doctor available in the Civil Hospital, Indora. She was referred to CHC, Nurpur. He has proved his endorsement vide Ext .PW- 1/D. According to .him, injuries No.2 and 4 were possible to be caused by nail. In cross-examination, negated that injuries No.2 to 4 were possible due to scuffled- 10. PW-2 Dr. Gaitri Mahajan examined the prosecutrix on 2.7.1995 on the request of the police made vide Ext.PW-2/A. Her observations were as under- "Average built female. Heart beat NAD Manustration history LMP 14th June 5/680 days. Secondary sexual character. Axillary hairs brownish black well developed. Breast developed, pubic hairs blackish in brown matted- hairs out and sent for chemical analysis. Teeth: Total 28 in NO. Present in upper and lower jaw. Genitals: No mark of any injury around the genitals or thigh present. Vagina administered 2 fingers tight. Redness was seen. Labia Minora and Majora normat Hymen ruptured, Vagina smear 3 in NO. taken and handed over to police for chemical examination." 11. For ascertaining the age of PW1, she was referred to the Radiologist as well as to the dental Surgeon. Copy of medical certificate issued by FW2 is Ext.PW-2/B and reports of Chemical Examiner are Exts. PX and PY According to her, the possibility oT rape could not be ruled out. She identified the clothes of the prosecutrix being Ext.P-1 and P-4. 12. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion of the defence that the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse. This is the entire material evidence to show that the prosecutrix was raped against her wish by the appellant on the fateful day. 13. PW-17 is the other witness Dr. D.B. Sharma, Radiologist, Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Delhi. According to him, he was posted in Dharamsala. On 3.7.1997, he examined the prosecutrix, aged 15 years, resident of Indpur. He gave his report vide Ext.PW-17/C. According to him, the age of the prosecutrix was more than 15 years but less than 18 years. 14. 13. PW-17 is the other witness Dr. D.B. Sharma, Radiologist, Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Delhi. According to him, he was posted in Dharamsala. On 3.7.1997, he examined the prosecutrix, aged 15 years, resident of Indpur. He gave his report vide Ext.PW-17/C. According to him, the age of the prosecutrix was more than 15 years but less than 18 years. 14. To the remaining evidence, detailed reference is not being made as what is necessary for deciding this appeal has been extracted hereinabove. It may be observed that after lodging of the report i.e. F.I.R. Ext.PW-4/A, police immediately swung into action. From the spot underwear which was stained with blood and semen, was taken into possession from the spot on 2.7.1995 by the police vide Ext.PW-7/A. Opinion of the doctor on medico-legal certificate (Ext.PW-2/B) is Ext.PW-2/C. Records from the school were taken into possession. Headmistress, Govt. High School, Indora has certified vide Ext.PW-10/A that the prosecutrix was absent from school on 1.7.1995. Photo copy of the attendance/register is Ext.PW-10/B. 15. Similarly, appellant was found absent on 1.7.199-5 in Physics period, English period and in Mathematics period as is evident form; photo copy of the attendance registers Exts. PW -9/A, PW9/C and PW-9/D, respectively. Date of birth of the prosecutrix is shown as 24.2.1980 by the Headmistress, PW-10 vide Ext. PW-10/C. Ext. PW-18/A is spot map prepared by the Investigating Officer. Similarly, age of the prosecutrix has been established to be 24.2.1980 as per Principal, Satguru Public School, Majitha, Amritsar vide Ext.PW-19/A. 16. As per report of the State forensic Laboratory, Himachal Pradesh, shimla, blood was found on the underwear, shirt and Sal war of the prosecutrix of B group, whereas blood group could not be ascertained in the Banyan and pubic hair. This report is Ext. PY. 17. Vide Ext. PX, it was reported that on the underwear, human blood and semen was found. On dupatta, semen was found, but there was no trace of blood on it. On shirt, Banyan and human hair, human bloc was found, but no semen. On the slide, blood was found, but no semen. 18. At the time of hearing, Mr. R.K. Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny, as according to him, his client has been falsely implicated in this case. On the slide, blood was found, but no semen. 18. At the time of hearing, Mr. R.K. Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny, as according to him, his client has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that from the circumstances of this case, cpnsent is inferable. According to him, prosecutrix was friendly to the opp. and was habitual to intercourse. 19. While advancing this line of argument, Mr. Gautam submitted that these pleas he is puttng up with a view to persuade this court to allow this appeal, otherwise there is no legal evidence so as to even remotely connect the appellant with the commission on the offence. According to him, question of giving any explanation or putting up a defence will only arise when prosecution brings home the guilt against an accused which is not the situaiton in the present case. He further submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated by PWs 4 and 5 and he has been made a scape goat. In the alternative and again without conceding, he submitted that keeping in view the tender age of his client who was merely a student of Class XII at the time of the alleged incident, sentence imposed upon him was too excessive without giving him a chance to reform himself. He, therefore, prayed for the reduction of sentence also. 20. All these pleas have been controverted by the learned Assistant Advocate General. Ac^Srding to her, the appellant has been dealt with lightly in the instance case. He should have been given severe punishment which would act as a deterrent to others in the society not to commit such offences in future. She further submitted that-life of a young girl has been spoiled by sexual abuse on the part of the appellant. According to her, the prosecutrix is a fatherless girl being brought up by her mother and another stigma of rape will go with her throughout her life and will traumatise her. Regarding false implication of the appellant, she submitted that this is a plea raised to be simply rejected. Because, there is no reason much less sufficient cause for the prosecutrix and her mother as well as her maternal uncle and police to screen away the real offender and implicate the appellant. She has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Regarding false implication of the appellant, she submitted that this is a plea raised to be simply rejected. Because, there is no reason much less sufficient cause for the prosecutrix and her mother as well as her maternal uncle and police to screen away the real offender and implicate the appellant. She has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 21. After having considered the respective submission urged on behalf of the parties and at the same time having gone through the record of this case as well as for the reasons to be recorded, there is no merit in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. 22. Prosecutrix while appearing as PW-5 has given a vivid description of the sequence of events from the time she started from her residence to school on 1.7.1995 at 7.30 A.M. till she .returned back without attending the school.| How she was taken to’ bushes and then sexually abused thrice against her wishes by the appellant, her having felt pain as a consequence of such abuse, blood having come from her private part, appellant having cleaned the same with his underwear has been explained by her in her statement. Underwear was taken into possession vide Ext.PW-7/B from the spot on 2.7.1995 in the presence of her mother and other witnesses. She has also stated that she made an attempt to resist such abuse on the part of the appellant and PW-2 Dr. Gaitri Mahajan stated that injuries No.2 and 4 could be caused by nails, lends credence to her version that she unsuccessfully made attempt to resist the act of the appellant. 23. Lust on the part of the appellant was not satisfied after he had deprived the prosecutrix of her virginity. He repeated the act for second and third time. This shows the barbaric attitude on his part without realising what he was doing to a helpless girl. By refering to the last question in the cross-examination that the prosecutrix was in love with the appellant, his counsel made an attempt to show that both the prosecutrix and the appellant were in love with each other. Even if it be assumed (though there is no legal evidence to take this view), still it does not mean that it was a licence of the appellant to have abused the prosecutrix sexually. Even if it be assumed (though there is no legal evidence to take this view), still it does not mean that it was a licence of the appellant to have abused the prosecutrix sexually. Another attempt was made to suggest th.at the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse, this suggestion was repelled by the doctor in her cross-examination, 24. Coming to the plea that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix (PW-5), her mother (PW-4) and maternal uncle of the prosecutrix Thakur Dass (PW-7). It is again a plea that has been raised . simply to be rejected. This court cannot lose sight of the fact that by making false allegation or falsely implicating the appellant, proseeutrix, her mother and maternal uncle are putting the girl to shame, disrepute and disrespect besides stigma-tising her in the society. 25. It is a matter of common knowledge that a victim of such an abuse is normally looked down upon in the social set up particularly in rural areas. In addition to this, why would the prosecutrix as well as PWs 1 and 7 make an attempt to falsely implicate the appellant thereby screening out the real culprit? There is no good reason. It is not the case of the appellant that there is any previous enmity between him and/or his family and the prosecutrix and/or her family so as to implicate him. In fact, there is no suggestion given to any of the prosecution witnesses including PWs 4,5 and 7. Simply saying that the appellant has been falsely implicated by itself is of no consequence. 26. What is the explanation of the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. In this behalf answers given by him to question Nos. 16,17,24 and 25 are material which are as under:- Q. 16. It has further come in prosecution evidence against you that you were arrested by ASI kanjit Singh on 2.7.1995, and were got medically examined though doctor roy, PW-1 who found four injuries on your person and found you fit to perform sexual intercourse who issued MLR Ex. PWl/B. What have you to state about it? Ans: I was medically examined under the supervision of police and the injuries on my body were due to this scuffle with my school boys. Q. 17. PWl/B. What have you to state about it? Ans: I was medically examined under the supervision of police and the injuries on my body were due to this scuffle with my school boys. Q. 17. It has further come in prosecution evidence against you that you were found absent from the school from 1.7.1995 till 3.7.1995 by Principal PW-9 Shri Sudershan Devi who issued attendance certificate. Ex.PW9/A to Ex. PW9/D. What have you to state about it? Ans: I was away on 1.7.1995 with my school boys for picnic. Q.24. Why the prosecution witnesses have deposed against you? Ans: The witnesses are inimical to me. Q.25. Do you want to say any thing else? Ans: I am innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.Prosecutrix Kimari Monika is from a different caste and we have noconcern with the family of the prosecutrix. Kumari Monika alongwith her mother made this false case in-connivance with police officials just to defame me as well as my family". 27. Who were the school boys with whom he had the scuffle resulting injuries on his body; there is no suggestion to any of the prosecution witnesses nor to the doctor PW-2. Regarding appellant having gone on picnic with school boys on 1.7.1995, again there is no suggestion to PWs. 4, 5 and 7 nor any of such boy has been examined with whom he had gone to picnic on 1.7.1995. If that was the factual position, examination of such boys would have gone a long way in determining the case. 28. Similarly, explanation that the witnesses are inimical to him is not put to any of them. Appellant and prosecutrix belonging to different castes and appellant having no concern with her family and both mother and daughter having cooked up a false case with police to defame is an explanation which is purely an after-thought. Reason for holding this is that no suggestion was put to any of the witnesses on these lines. 29. Because of her having been ravished despite resistance at the hands of the appellant, the trauma through which the prosecutrix must have undergone and may be even now undergoing cannot be ignored. Besides this, she will have to live with it throughout her life. It will also be a stimbling block in her finding a suitable match. This all will happen for no fault of her. Besides this, she will have to live with it throughout her life. It will also be a stimbling block in her finding a suitable match. This all will happen for no fault of her. At the risk of repetition, it may be observed that there is no good reason for the prosecutrix to have falsely implicated the appellant and thereby let off the real culprit. There is no reason; atleast none is made out from her cross- examination nor any suggestion was given to both PWs 4 and 5 as also to PW-7, maternal uncle of the prosecutrix. This is an additional ground not to accept the stand of the appellant. 30. On an over all examination of the matter, I am satisfied that the appellant has been dealt with lightly. Keeping in view his tender age and giving him a chance to reform,-notice of enhancement is not being issued to him. 31. Another ground urged by Mr. R.K. Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant was that there is no corroborative evidence to support the version given by the prosecution. This is an argument without any substance. Reason being that corroboration is not a rule of evidence, but in fact a rule of prudence. Depending upon the statement of a prosecutrix in a given case, it may require corroboration from other evidence; this is not the situaiton in the present case. As noted in the preceding paragraphs, the prosecutrix has given complete description of the whole incident. When she was cross-examined on behalf of the appellant, she could not be disloged. In fact, I am satisfied that her statement alone is sufficient to convict the appellant and in the instant case, her statement is fully corroborated by medical evidence of two doctors (PW-1 who examined the appellant and PW-2 who examined the prosecutrix) Resistance on her part is also established from the nature of injuries found on the person of the appellant. 32. In this behalf, it may be observed that the position of the prosecutrix is not that of an accomplice which cant be accepted unless corroborated. What is the outcome of the corroboration, it only lends credence to the version of the prosecution. There are no compelling reasons spelt out so as to either ask for corroboration of the version of PW-5 or to disbelieve her. What is the outcome of the corroboration, it only lends credence to the version of the prosecution. There are no compelling reasons spelt out so as to either ask for corroboration of the version of PW-5 or to disbelieve her. It is also not the case of the appellant that someone appeared at the spot and with a view to save her skin prosecutrix has falsely raped him in. 33. Merely because as a helpless victim like prosecutrix submitted to the lust of the appellant, does not make her a consenting party as was feebly attempted to be argued by Shri Gautam. Here again at the risk of repetitition it may be observed that she did attempt to resist but was unsuccessful. 34. For taking this view, reference can be made to Kedar Nath Singh v. State 1995 Crl.L.J.4121, State of andhra Pradesh v. Gangula Satya Murthy, 1997 Crl.L.J. 774 Sc, Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, 1983 SC 753, State ofsikkim v. Padam Lall Pradhan, 2000 (10) SCC 112, State of Rajasthan v. N.K. 2000 (5) SCC 30, and State ofH.P. v. Mango Ram, 2000 (7) SCC 224. 35. No other point is urged. 36. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith to undergo the sentence.