P.C.PHUKAN, J. This is an appeal presented by the State from the appellate order of acquittal dated 29.8.1988 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Manipur in Criminal Appeal No. 2(1) of 198672/88. 2. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Manipur by its judgment and order dated 6.6.1985 passed in S.T. Case No. 7/82/5/82/1/84 convicted the accused u/s 376IPC and sentenced him thereunder to seven years rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by his aforesaid impugned judgment acquitted the accused of the offence U/s 376 IPC and instead convicted him u/s 354 IPC and sentenced him thereunder to one year's rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) and, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo further two months' rigorous imprisonment. 3. I have heard Mrs Ch. Bidyamani Devi, learned public prosecutor for the Staterappellant and Mr. I. Lalitkumar Singh, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent-accused. I have also perused the records of the case. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 23.2.1981 at about 2 p.m. at Thoubal Khunou Village under the jurisdiction of Thoubal Police Station PW-2 Smti Thagoi Devi, a teenaged girl, alone came to the house of the respondent-accused Moriangthem Ningthou Singh to collect from him a sum of Rs. 10.00 (ten) being the price of a puppy he purchased on credit from her father PW-1. The accused was then alone in the house. He asked her to come inside. The moment the unsuspecting girl, who used to frequent his house to meet his daughter and her friend, and used to address him as uncle, was inside, the accused caught hold of her right hand, dragged her to his bed, forcibly pulled out the phanek she was wearing notwithstanding resistance, and raped her. 5. The FIR Ext. P-l was lodged promptly within two hours of the occurrence stating therein the time and place of the occurrence and also mentioning the name of the accused and narrating how the occurrence took place. The same day the police arrested the accused. 6. The prosecution examined eight witnesses in all. 7. PW-1, Laishram Chikonjao Singh is the father of the victim girl PW-2. He deposed that he sold to the accused a puppy for Rs. 10/- (ten) and the accused told him that he would, pay the price aftewards. The same day the police arrested the accused. 6. The prosecution examined eight witnesses in all. 7. PW-1, Laishram Chikonjao Singh is the father of the victim girl PW-2. He deposed that he sold to the accused a puppy for Rs. 10/- (ten) and the accused told him that he would, pay the price aftewards. Thereafter, PW-1 sent his daughter PW-2 to the house of the accused for collecting the money. Accordingly, she went, and after about one hour of her departure she came running any crying. Her dresses were found torn. She informed him that she was forcibly raped by the accused in his house. Immediately PW-1 rushed to the house of the accused, who was found inside his house with doors closed. One Yaishkul Singh (not examined) and PW-3, Jugol Singh and others came to the house of the accused. But the accused refused to open the door. Then PW-1 requested other persons present to stay there and he rushed to Thoubal Police Station for lodging the FIR. One Muslim drafted the FIR Ext. P-1. He put his thumb impression. After lodging the FIR he came back accompanied by the police who arrested the accused. In cross-examination, PW-1 pleaded ignorance about Yaiskul Singh and PW-3 of filing an application for removing the accused from the Office of Village Pradhan. He also denied to have made any complaint against the accused in collusion with PW-3 and Yaiskul Singh. 8. PW-2 is the prosecutrix. According to her evidence before the Court, her father PW-1 asked her to go to the house of the accused to collect Rs.10/- (ten) being the price of the puppy. She went to the house of the accused and found him alone in the house. The accused asked her to come inside. The moment she was inside, the accused holted the door from inside, caught hold of her right hand, dragged her forcibly to his bed. She raised alarm and cried for help. But the accused pulled out her wearing phanek. She tried to resist. In the struggle the phenak was torn and the accused forcibly pushed down her on his bed and raped her. She attempted to escape but was fully overpowered by the accused. After the rape she took her wearing phanek and came out from the house with tears in her eyes. Near the gate of the accused she met PW-3. In the struggle the phenak was torn and the accused forcibly pushed down her on his bed and raped her. She attempted to escape but was fully overpowered by the accused. After the rape she took her wearing phanek and came out from the house with tears in her eyes. Near the gate of the accused she met PW-3. He asked her as to what had happened. But she could not answer out of shame. When she reached her house her mother was not in the house. She narrated what happened to her father PW-1. Then she accompanied by her father went to the house of the accused. The accused was found inside the house with doors closed. He refused to open the door. Some other villagers also came and her father went to the Thoubal Police Station and she returned home. On the following day she went to the Police Station. The police seized her wearing phanek. After 3/4 days she was medically examined by the doctor, PW-6. She was also produced before a Magistrate who recorded her statement. In cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that her father PW-1 made a false report to the Police in collusion with PW-3 and Yaiskul Singh to harass the accused as he refused to recommend them for grant of loan. On further examination she told the Court that after the accused forcibly pushed her down on his bed he forcibly had sexual intercourse with her three times without her consent one after another by inserting his penis into her vagina. 9. PW-3, a co-villager, deposed that while he was going out for taking water from the well he found PW-2 coming out from the gate of the accused's house weeping. He corroborated evidence of PW-1 by stating that he accompanied him to the house of the accused who was found inside closing the doors and who came out only when police arrived. He also witnessed the seizure of PW-2's phenak (seizure list Ext. P-3). PW-4, another co-villager found, PW-2 going towards her house wearing torn phenak in an awkward condition from the gate of the accused. On seeing her condition, PW-4 felt shock and followed her upto her house and heard her narrating the happenings to her father PW-1. 10. PW-5, the Magistrate recorded the statement of PW-1 on 2.3.1981 u/s 164 Cr.P.C. 11. PW-4, another co-villager found, PW-2 going towards her house wearing torn phenak in an awkward condition from the gate of the accused. On seeing her condition, PW-4 felt shock and followed her upto her house and heard her narrating the happenings to her father PW-1. 10. PW-5, the Magistrate recorded the statement of PW-1 on 2.3.1981 u/s 164 Cr.P.C. 11. PW-6, the Doctor, a Government Medical Officer, examined PW-2 on 26.2.1981 and found as under:- "1. Breast development - Fully developed, hemispherical nipples small and surrounded by areola. 2. Axiliary hair - Brown and scanty. 3. External genitals - Fully developed, valvasoes slight separate, labia rnajora elastic, labia minora reddish and elastic. 4. Hymen - Torn there is about 3 days old. 5. Pubic hair - Black and thick. 6. Menac - Fours back 7. Pathological report - Spamotozua nil, squamous epitherial present." The Doctor opined that PW-2 was below 18 years but above 17 years of age. He said he would not exactly conclude that the PW-2 was subjected to sexual intercourse as she has been brought on the 4th day of the incident but there was fair probability of her subjection to sexual intercourse. PW-3,4,5;and 6 were not cross-examined by the defence. PW-7 the Police Officer, first investigated the case. He visited the place of occurrence with the informant, PW-1. He found the house of the accused surrounded by some local villagers. He also found the house bolted from inside. One being asked, the accused opened the door and he arrested him. He prepared a sketch map Ext. P-6. The next day he seized on white underwear stained with blood as produced by the acused. Ext P-3 is the seizure memo. He also seized the phenak produced by the allegedly victim girl PW-2. Ext. P-4 is the blood stained underwear. He sent PW-2 for medical examination and also produced her before a Magistrate for recording her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. He examined seven witnesses and the case was then endorsed to Sub-Inspector PW-8, S. Kumar Singh, who simply submitted the chargesheet u/s 376 IPC against the accused. 12. The defence case is that the accused has been falsely implicated out of grudge. 13. The accused examined himself as DW-1, and another witness, Village Chowkidar DW-2. The accused stated that there had been enmity between him and maternal uncle of the prosecutrix arising out of Gram Sabha Election. 12. The defence case is that the accused has been falsely implicated out of grudge. 13. The accused examined himself as DW-1, and another witness, Village Chowkidar DW-2. The accused stated that there had been enmity between him and maternal uncle of the prosecutrix arising out of Gram Sabha Election. He further deposed that the said material uncle and other relatives took up many false action against him. In cross-examination by the prosecution, he admitted that there was no enmity between him and relatives of PW-2. He also admitted that the prosecutrix (PW-2) and her party instituted no false criminal case against him. He stated that PW-3 did not institute any criminal case against him nor he instituted such case against PW-3. 14. On consideration of the evidence on record and after hearing the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. Altering the conviction of the accused u/s 376 IPC to one u/s 354 IPC, the appellate Court held in Para-18 of the impugned judgment and order : “I is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim went to the house of the accused and she was forcibly pulled inside his house by the accused by holding her hand and the accused also pulled out the phenak of the victim who resisted the attempt and as a result of which the said phanek was torn. It is also proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim rushed out of the house of the accused weeping and in awkward manner about her cress and went towards her house.” The above findings of the appellate Court remain unchallenged as the accused did not prefer any appeal against such findings leading to his conviction u/s 354 IPC. The only question now is whether the appellate Court was justified in altering the conviction of the accused u/s 376 IPC to one u/s 354 IPC holding that after the accused forcibly pulled out the phanek of PW-2 he let her go as she raised alarm and that the prosecution failed to adduce evidence sufficient to prove rape on her. In holding so, the appellate Court appears to have been prompted by the following considerations which Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused, has also highlighted:- (1) In the FIR, Ext. In holding so, the appellate Court appears to have been prompted by the following considerations which Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused, has also highlighted:- (1) In the FIR, Ext. P-1, father of the PW-2 the victim girl, stated that when she raised alarm he let her go, and that the police also registered the case U/s 354 IPC. (2) PW-2 did not tell PW-3 that the accused raped her when she met him immediately after coming out of the house of the accused. (3) PW-2's statement about rape on her has not been corroborated by the medical evidence of the doctor, PW-6. (4) The Doctor, PW-6 opined that at the relevant time PW-2 was above 17 years and below 18 years of age and that he did not mention any physical injuries on her person to indicate sexual intercourse. (5) PW-2 falsely stated that the accused raped her to make the offence more serious at the instance of her father PW-2 and PW-3 who had enmity with the accused. 15. As regards (1), the FIR, Ext. P-l was not lodged by the victim girl PW-2 herself. She narrated the incident before her father PW-1 who in turn told about the incident to a Muslim person who wrote the FIR, and PW-1 being illiterate, put his thumb impression thereon. The words "when she raised alarm he let go of her running for home" should not be read in isolation. These words read with the proceeding words "he was fully prepared to deprive my daughter of her virginity would mean that after the accused pulled out her phanek she cried but the accused let her go only after depriving her of her virginity. In Gurnam Kaur-Vs-Bakshish Singh & Ors, reported in AIR (1981) SC 631 it has been held that FIR given by a rustic woman is not to be treated to be the summary of the entire prosecution case. 16. As regards (2), PW-2 explained that she did not answer to PW-3's query when she met him immediately after coming out of the house of the accused out of shame. A girl subjected to sexual violence suffers from a tremendous sense of shame and is always slow and hesitant about disclosing her plight. Such omission does not mean that she was not raped. 17. A girl subjected to sexual violence suffers from a tremendous sense of shame and is always slow and hesitant about disclosing her plight. Such omission does not mean that she was not raped. 17. As regards (3), in his evidence PW-6, Doctor explained that he could not give a definite opinion as to whether or not PW-2 was raped because he examined her only on the fourth day after the incident. He however, found that her hymen was torn which was three days old. He also said that there was fair probability of her subjection to sexual intercourse. Thus, the Doctor's evidence cannot be said to give lie to the statement of PW-2 regarding rape on her. It has been held in Chandraprakash 's case reported in (1998) Crl LJ889: "Be that as it may, the evidence of this witness does show that there was evidence suggesting the possibility of the respondent having had sexual intercourse within the proceeding 24 hours although the witness could not hazard a definite opinion. Therefore, the noncommittal opinion of this witness cannot be said to run counter to the evidence of the prosecutrix." In this regard Mr I. Lalitkumar, learned Amicus Curiae, referred to the decision reported in 2001(4) Supreme Court 468 and a decison of this Court in Ramnarayan 's case reported in 1999(1) GLT 54, Decisions in both the cases are clearly distinguishable. In the first case, the Apex Court found it difficult to accept the truthfulness of the version of the prosecutrix of any rape and found her statement contradicted by her own aunt and also by the medical evidence and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. In the later case, spermatozoa was not found on the vaginal smear. In the said case, the Doctor examined the victim within fifteen hours of the occurrence and in the instant case the Doctor examined PW-2 only on the fourth day after the occurrence. 18. As regards (4), it is true that PW-6, the Doctor opined that PW-2 was above 17 years of age and thus attained the age of consent. However, the fact that the doctor did not mention about any physical injury on her person except torn hymen does not mean that she was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse and did not offer any resistance. However, the fact that the doctor did not mention about any physical injury on her person except torn hymen does not mean that she was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse and did not offer any resistance. One cannot except marks of resistance on the person of a teen-aged girl PW-2, alone and helpless, overpowered by the accused aged about 36 years of age. In fact, the appellate Court held that PW-2 resisted the attempt and as a result of which the said phenak, which she was wearing then, was torn. 19. As regards (5), the accused examined himself as DW-1 and said that there had been enmity between him and PW-2's maternal uncle and another relative who made several false charges against him. However, the appellate Court held in this regard: ".... The defence tried to discredit the prosecution witnesses by stating that there was enmity between the accused on one side and PW-1 the father of the victim, PW-3 and PW-4 on the other side. But such allegation cannot be sustained in view of the answer of DW-2 in his cross-examination by the prosecution. There is no any convincing evidence that there was animosity between the accused and those prosecution witnesses." In this regard, I again refer to Chandraprakash 's case reported in 1998 CrL U 889 wherein it has been held: "A prosecutrix of sex-offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 of Evidence Act and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in case of physical violence, the same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. What is necessary is that the Court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law of practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may land assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to land assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full it understanding the Court is entitled to base a conviction of her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case discloses that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence." 20. In the instant case PW-2 or her father or any other relatives cannot be said to have any strong motive to falsely implicate the accused. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case I have no hesitation in accepting the clear, cogent and natural evidence of the victim girl PW-2. She categorically deposed, "accused Ningthou Singh forcibly had sexual intercourse with me three times without my consent one after another by inserting his penis into my vagina. "I feel convinced that she is a witness for the truth. I would still want corroboration to reassure myself and that I have found in the evidence of the Doctor PW-6 and her father PW-2. The Doctor, PW-6 who examined her on the fourth day of the occurrence found three days old tear in her hymen and opined that there was fair probability that she was subjected to sexual intercourse. This has not been challenged by the defence in his cross-examination. In fact the Doctor PW-6 was not cross-examined at all. The Doctor, PW-6 who examined her on the fourth day of the occurrence found three days old tear in her hymen and opined that there was fair probability that she was subjected to sexual intercourse. This has not been challenged by the defence in his cross-examination. In fact the Doctor PW-6 was not cross-examined at all. Immediately after rape on her, she came out of the house of the accused and ran towards her house weaping and wearing torn phenak. She added "When I reach home my mother was not in the house. I narrated the fact to my father." This statement has been proved by her father PW-1 to whom it was made. This is an important piece of corroborative evidence under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. PW-2 came home straight from the house of the accused, narrated the fact of her being raped to her father PW-1 soon after the occurrence when she was still under the impulse of sexual assault on her. She cannot be said to have tutored between the time of the outrageous assault on her and the time when she made the statement to her father PW-1. The evidence on record is sufficient to prove the charge u/s 376(1) IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. 21. The trial Court sentenced the accused to seven year's rigorous imprisonment which is the minimum sentence that can be awarded in a conviction under Section 376(1) IPC. Section 376(1) IPC reads:- "Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the women raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which case, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than several years." 22. Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than several years." 22. When the accused, a married man aged about 36 years, committed the heinous crime of rape on PW-2, a teen-aged girl who used to call him uncle and who is his daughter's friends, there is no room for leniency. No case is made out for reducing the sentence to seven years' rigorous imprisonment imposed by the trial Court. 23. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 29.8.88 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitting the accused-respondent of the offence under Section 376IPC is set aside and the judgment and order dated 6.6.J& passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in ST Case No. 7/82/5/82/1/84 convicting the accused respondent u/s 376 IPC and sentencing him there under to seven years' rigorous imprisonment is restored. The accused respondent shall surrender forthwith before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge to serve out the sentence, failing which, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge shall proceed against him according to law. The bail granted to him stands cancelled. Learned Amicus Curiae Mr I. Lalitkumar Singh shall be paid fees for conducting this case as per relevant rules. -------------------