JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. :- Appellant after was found guilty of having committed offence under Section 376 I.P.C., has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In the event of failure of deposit of fine, he has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one year. Period when he was in custody during investigation and trial was to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Appellant makes grievance against this judgment passed be the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour District, at Nahan in Sessions Trial No.34-ST/7 of 1999, dated 29.5.2000. 2. Mr. Chandel learned counsel for the appellant while questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment impugned, urged that there is delay in lodging the FIR. Alleged incident is of 8th August^ 1999, whereas FIR was lodged on 11th August, 1999 when the Police Station was at a stones throw from the residence of the complainant. There being no satisfactory explanation for this delay the element of concoction, fabrication and deliberations before lodging the FIR cannot be ruled out. This has caused material prejudice to the appellant. He further pointed out that the statement of prosecution witnesses, particularly the mother of the prosecutrix (PW-3) and prosecutrix herself (PW-4) cannot be accepted to maintain and uphold the conviction. Once, these statements are excluded there is no legal evidence so as to hold the appellant guilty of any offence, muchless under Section 376 I.P.C. By referring to the statement of PW-1 Dr. Mrs. Anjana Oberoi (who examined the prosecutrix being habitual to sexual intercourse and the manner in which she had projected her grievance to the effect that she was being ravished by the appellant for the last three months is pure and simple result of concoction and deliberations aimed at falsely implicating his client. 3. Another ground pressed by Mr. Chandel was that the mother of the prosecutrix (PW-3) Geeta Devi has a motive to falsely implicate the appellant. As according to him, this witness has admitted that she had a quarrel with the appellant and was demanding money, failing which had threatened to falsely implicate him (the appellant). Thus this case is nothing but a cooked up affair, therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. "On the other hand Mr. As according to him, this witness has admitted that she had a quarrel with the appellant and was demanding money, failing which had threatened to falsely implicate him (the appellant). Thus this case is nothing but a cooked up affair, therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. "On the other hand Mr. Mandhotra, learned Additional Advocate General, controverted all these pleas and then urged that looking to the social set-up in which the prosecutrix and her parents were living as also the set-up of our society in such like cases, time is consumed because parents are double-minded whether the to police or not. Reason being that once a female is exposed as having been raped it not only stigmatises her, but also put her to shame as it may not be possible to settle her matrimony. Her chastity and honour being involved in the matter. According to him no parent will screen the real offender, by falsely implicating a person like the appellant in the present case. No prejudice has been caused to the appellant merely on the ground of delay in lodging of the FIR. By referring to the explanation given by the appellant in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, learned Additional Advocate General urged that this is an additional link in the already completed chain of circumstances which points towards one and only irresistible conclusion leading to the guilt of the appellant. Therefore, he has prayed for upholding the conviction and sentence by dismissing this appeal. 5. Relevant facts required for deciding this appeal need to be briefly noted, which are as under. 6. As per prosecution case PW-3 Geeta Devi along with her husband Gulab Singh was residing at Jaunaghat at Sarahan. Father of the prosecutrix was running Tea shop at bus stand, Sarahan and was being assisted by PW-3 there. Prosecutrix was mostly alone at home. Adjoining their residence, appellant was also residing in the next room. He used to visit the house of the prosecutrix some times to view Television and at times to teach the prosecutrix (PW-4) 7. On the fateful day, i.e. 8.8.1999 at about 4.00 P.M. when the prosecutrix had come from school, she was all by herself in the room. Adjoining their residence, appellant was also residing in the next room. He used to visit the house of the prosecutrix some times to view Television and at times to teach the prosecutrix (PW-4) 7. On the fateful day, i.e. 8.8.1999 at about 4.00 P.M. when the prosecutrix had come from school, she was all by herself in the room. Appellant is alleged to have entered the room, bolted it from inside and then after removing her Paijami (Trouser) and also taking of his pant committed sexual intercourse with the girl. This resulted in her getting pain in the vagina. He left the room threatening her not to disclose this fact to anyone. She was lying in that state on the cot, when again the appellant entered the room and repeated the act. She did not disclose this fact to anyone. However, on the third day of the occurrence her mother PW-3 Geeta Devi saw blood stains on the trouser of the prosecutrix. She inquired about it from the prosecutrix. It was then that the matter came to light. Prosecutrix disclosed as to how appellant had done Bura Kaam with her. After coming to know, PW-3 disclosed this fact to her husband at night. In these circumstances the matter was reported to the police on the next day, i.e. 11.8.1999. Another fact that needs to be noted here is age of the prosecutrix at the relevant point of time was 12 years. After getting the prosecutrix as well as the appellant medically examined and collecting other evidence and on completion of investigation challan was put in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh camp at Sarahan, who committed the case to the court of Sessions. On perusal of the record, trial Court was satisfied that there is enough material to frame the charges. As such charge under Section 3761.P.C. was framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and thus claimed trial. After conclusion of the trial appellant has been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. So far age of the prosecutrix is concerned, it is around 12 years, as such the case has to be examined on the basis of this age. Consent was never set-up as defence at the time of hearing of this appeal and even if it was set up, it would not have been accepted as such. So far age of the prosecutrix is concerned, it is around 12 years, as such the case has to be examined on the basis of this age. Consent was never set-up as defence at the time of hearing of this appeal and even if it was set up, it would not have been accepted as such. Before examining the prosecutrix, learned trial Court below satisfied itself that she was intelligent enough and that understood the sanctity of oath. Therefore, she had been examined on oath. According to her she was alone on the day of occurrence and was viewing television when the appellant entered the room, bolted it from inside and then performed sexual intercourse with her after removing her trouser and his pant. According to her he had been coming earlier also for viewing television as well as for teaching her. She has further gone on record to say that he would take her into his lap earlier by removing her trouser, but retained his pant. She was weeping after she was ravished by the appellant for the first time on the day of occurrence. Again he entered the room and thus repeated the act. Because of threat to kill her in case she disclosed all this to anyone, she kept mum. It was out of this fear that she kept mum. She felt pain in her stomach as well as in vagina for 3-4 days. However, after 2-3 days she bled. Seeing this on her trouser, her mother inquired from her. Then she disclosed the facts to her mother. Thereafter the matter was reported to the police vide Ex.PB. Her trouser was taken into possession vide memo Ex .PC. When cross examined at length, she admits that there are number of houses in the vicinity as also an office in the same building where they resided. The school where she was studying has co-education. This incident, the girl did not report to her teacher or to any of her friends. She has stated that after the accused had sexually abused her for the first time she had remained in bed and had not raised any alarm. She has specifically stated that she cannot tell why she did not put her trouser and came out from the room. According to her she was bleeding for the last two days at that time. She has specifically stated that she cannot tell why she did not put her trouser and came out from the room. According to her she was bleeding for the last two days at that time. She has further stated that the appellant was sexually abusing her for the last three months (prior to the occurrence), and she had not disclosed this fact to any-one out of fear. When confronted with Ex.PB, this fact was not mentioned in it. 8. PW-3 is the mother of the prosecutrix. According to her PW-4 is her daughter, aged 12 years from her husband, Gulab Singh, She had another daughter from her previous husband, Babu Ram. She is 25 years of age. Prosecutrix was studying in class 4 and was promoted to class 5 after examination in December, 1999. She was assisting her husband at the tea stall at Bus stand Sarahan, which was at a distance of about 1 KM from their residence. Appellant was also known by the name of Tegta and was living in the adjoining room which they hired from Ram Kumari. Since both husband and wife were there at the Tea Stall, therefore, prosecutrix used to be alone at home. Appellant used to visit their residence for viewing television as well as some times for teaching PW-4. According to her she found blood on the trouser of the girl and inquired from her. After coming to know of the incident, she informed her husband and then the matter was reported to the police. PW-4 had disclosed to her mother PW-3, that appellant had done Bura Kaam (sexual intercourse) with her twice. Her clothes were washed by the mother prior to this. She admitted that there was a quarrel between her and the appellant on 10.8.1999 for 5 minutes. She also admitted having called her husband also there. She had denied the suggestion of the defence that prosecutrix had gone astray and was indulging in sex with boys. She has also denied the suggestion that this case is falsely planted by her in connivance with her brother Rajinder Dutt who was acquainted with the police or that he was demanding money from the appellant, failing which had threatened to falsely implicate him (the appellant). 9. PW-1 is the doctor who had examined the prosecutrix. She has also denied the suggestion that this case is falsely planted by her in connivance with her brother Rajinder Dutt who was acquainted with the police or that he was demanding money from the appellant, failing which had threatened to falsely implicate him (the appellant). 9. PW-1 is the doctor who had examined the prosecutrix. On examination, her observations are as under:- "As per statement of the patient, she had been frequently subjected to sexual assault for the last 3 months, since the time they have changed their residence. She was also complaining of bleeding her vagina for the last 14 days and prior to it. She never had bleeding her vagine (Menarche). On Examination Patient was a child of about 12 years of age (as per her statement). Moderately built and nourished, wearing a washed set of clothes, Shirt, Salwar, Sweater, Undershirt, Chunni and having dirty piece of cloth as vagina pad (sanitary pad). Fully conscious, well oriented to time and place, Gait/Normal. B,P. 100/70 mm hg, pulse-86/mt. Respiration-24/mt. The clothes did not show any sign of violence and were not stained with any mud etc. Secondary sex characters were developed per her age. Auxiliary and pubic hair were developed/present as per her age, which were fine. Breasts were developed according to her age. Nipple small and areola pink. No scretions came out on pressing the breast. No mark of violence over the body. External Genitalia Public hair present, libia majora and minora developed as per her age. No mark of injury seen on the external genitalia and thighs. Pubic hair were not matted. Bleeding per vagina present (menstrual blood). Hymen absent, hymanalis carcunculas present. Vaginal orifice admitted one finger easily. Uterus size was nuliparous and anteverted. Fornices clear. Pubic hair cut from small area and preserved. Vaginal smear taken from the posterior fornices and sent for examination. Vaginal smear report according to Dr. Sanjay Sharma. There were no sperms (motile or non-motile) seen but R.B.C. 10-12 and empithelial cells seen in + PHF. Slime Exam.-2 For age veritidation-Advised X rays for age determination. Also referred to Dental Surgeon-D.H. Nahan for dental check up & age assessment. In my opinion, the patient Usha Devi had been subjected to sexual assault frequently. There was no evidence of any injury on her genitalia. Pubic hair as asked for by the police preserved. Slime Exam.-2 For age veritidation-Advised X rays for age determination. Also referred to Dental Surgeon-D.H. Nahan for dental check up & age assessment. In my opinion, the patient Usha Devi had been subjected to sexual assault frequently. There was no evidence of any injury on her genitalia. Pubic hair as asked for by the police preserved. Vaginal swab also preserved and handed over to the police. The clothes of the patient also taken into possession and handed over to the police in sealed packet. For age verification the patient was referred to Radiologist and Dental Surgeon." 10. She had issued MLC Ex. PA. According to her with a view to ascertain her age, she was referred to Radiologist and Dental Surgeon. It has come in her statement that old tears of hymen were found and prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse, but the period could not be fixed during which she had sexual intercourse. She has further stated that she could not even rule out the sexual intercourse within or beyond 24 hours. In her cross examination she has stated that the prosecutrix might have indulged in sex, it may be for the last about six months. At the time of her examination bleeding from vagina was due to menses. This could long for 14 days, however, on performance of sexual act the said period can prolong. Radiological age of the prosecutrix was found between 12 to 14 years as per opinion of the Radiologist vide Ex.PA/1. 11. Dental age of the prosecutrix was opined by Dr. Raman Deep Kaur (PW-2) Dental Surgeon, District Hospital, Solan between 11 to 12 years, as per her opinion Ex .PA/2. 12. Investigating Officer is Dilshad Mohammad (PW-8). Nothing has been brought out from his statement so as to advance the case of the appellant. PW-6 is Kamal Dev, police official from Police Station, Pachhad. According to him, one sealed packet was deposited in the Police Station on 11.8.1999. Four sealed packets were handed over on 16.8.1999 to PW-7 Mohinder Singh. These were not tampered with while in his custody. PW-7 on 16.8.1999 was handed over these five sealed packets along with sample seal. Those were returned with some objections by FSL, Junga. Those were deposited by him on 18.8.1999 at Junga after removing the objections. No one tampered with those during this period. 13. PW-5 is the Head Master, Primary School, Sarahan. PW-7 on 16.8.1999 was handed over these five sealed packets along with sample seal. Those were returned with some objections by FSL, Junga. Those were deposited by him on 18.8.1999 at Junga after removing the objections. No one tampered with those during this period. 13. PW-5 is the Head Master, Primary School, Sarahan. He has proved from record the admission record of the prosecutrix vide copy Ex.P-1, copy of her birth certificate is Exp.-2 and School Leaving Certificate Ex.P-3. As per record, date of birth of prosecutrix is 16.5.1987. He admitted that the admission entry was not filled in by him. This is the entire material prosecution evidence. Lodging of FIR promptly excludes the possibility of fabricating and/or concocting the version after due deliberations. It also puts the police machinery into action in the direction of investigating the case. Ordinarily First Information Report needs to be lodged at the earliest and without undue delay. However, a question that needs to be looked into is that whether it can be held as a rule of universal applicability that wherever delay occurs, prosecution case is to be presumed to be the result of fabrication/deliberations, and thus be made a ground for throwing out the case on this ground alone. In our considered view and for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, answer would be in negative particularly in cases of the presentnature. No doubt a case under Section 376 I.P.C., if the FIR is lodged immediately, then prosecutrix can be got examined immediately and if the accused is apprehended he can also be got medically examined. This goes a long way in establishing the innocence/guilt of an accused. 15. However, the court cannot lose sight of the fact that when an offence of rape is committed so many considerations weigh with the family of the victim. Foremost is whether to report the matter to the police or not. Once a female is branded to have been raped, (as in the present case) it not only mentally traumatizes her, but also puts the family to shame, disrepute and disgrace in the society, particularly in rural areas. A female sexually abused is looked down upon. On certain occasions it takes sufficient time for the family members to decide to go to police and complain. 16. A female sexually abused is looked down upon. On certain occasions it takes sufficient time for the family members to decide to go to police and complain. 16. In the instant case victim of sexual abuse was a 12 years old innocent girl who, from as it is made out from the prosecution evidence out was sexually abused twice on 8.8.1999 while she was all alone and viewing television at home by the appellant. We cannot loose site of the fact that this is a case of child abuse and according to her she had been threatened by the appellant not to disclose this incident to anyone. Fortunately mother noticed blood on her trouser. this resulted in cat coming out of the bag. How the psyche of the child was working after she was ravished can be better imagined than explained. Argument that prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse will not improve the case of the appellant. Even if this was the situation, in no case it was a license to the appellant to have abused her sexually taking undue advantage of her being alone at her house. 17. Argument that because of altercation between appellant and mother of the prosecutrix, i.e. PW-4 on "l0th August, 1999 or brother of PW-3 was demanding money from the appellant and on failure to get him involved in a false case are too remote and weak motives for the mother to falsely involve the appellant by putting her daughter to shame as well as getting the family socially stigmatised. 18. Another reason not to accept this plea urged on behalf of the appellant is that its direct consequence is that PW-3 is trying to save the real culprit by getting the appellant falsely involved. Again question arises for what reason she would try to save the real culprit. Nothing could be pointed out by referring to either the prosecution evidence or to the so called motive which we have found to be too remote and weak to be accepted. 19. While severally criticizing the statements of PWs 3 & 4 being not acceptable, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that they do not inspire confidence and thus they cannot be made basis for convicting the appellant. 19. While severally criticizing the statements of PWs 3 & 4 being not acceptable, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that they do not inspire confidence and thus they cannot be made basis for convicting the appellant. Again this plea cannot be accepted, reason being that in case evidence of the prosecutrix is reliable as well as acceptable, that by itself is enough without there being any other evidence to uphold the conviction of an accused. 20. In this context we may also observe that the position of a victim of rape is not that of an accomplice but is of an injured witness. Therefore, there is no need to look for corroboration of her version once it is found that it is worthy of credence and is acceptable. It may be observed in this behalf that corroboration is rule of prudence and not of evidence. Depending upon circumstances of a particular case as also the evidence examined in it corroboration may be required. However, it is not necessary that in every case of sexual abuse in the absence of corroboration accused is entitled to acquittal. In the instant case we feel that the evidence of the prosecutrix PW-4 inspires confidence besides Being acceptable is enough to uphold the conviction impugned. As such criticism of her statement as well as of PW-3 is hereby rejected. 21. So far reliance placed on the statement of doctor PW-1 is concerned, it also does not improve the case of the appellant. Argument addressed in this behalf was that the prosecutrix is habitual to sexual intercourse. Appellant has nothing to do with the commission of offence and from some one others sin, he is being made the scape- goat. This argument has been raised simply to be rejected for the reasons stated hereinabove. 22. With a view to advance the case of the appellant, Mr. Chandel placed reliance on precedents. We now notice those. 23. A Division Bench judgment of this court in Gian Chand v. State of H.P. 1996 (2) Crimes 213, with a view to show that delay in lodging the FIR is fatal. He hastened to submit that this judgment though reversed by subsequent judgment of the Supreme court reported in State of H.P. v. Gian Chand 2001 S.C.C. (Cri.) 980 2001(2) Cur. L.J. (HP) SC 212. He hastened to submit that this judgment though reversed by subsequent judgment of the Supreme court reported in State of H.P. v. Gian Chand 2001 S.C.C. (Cri.) 980 2001(2) Cur. L.J. (HP) SC 212. However, the aspect of the delay being fatal has not been interfered with by the Supreme Court. What was held by Supreme Court on the question of delay while revising this judgment was as under:- "12. Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution ask and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in loding the first information report. Delay has the effect of putting the court on its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is a possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case. In the present case, PW 1. the mother of the prosecutrix is a widow. The accused is a close relation of the brother of the late husband of-PWl. PW1 obviously needed her family members consisting of her in-laws to accompany her or at least help her in lodging the first information report at the police station. The incident having occurred in a village, the approach of the in-laws of PW 1 displayed rusticity in first calling upon" the father of the accused and complaining to him of what his son had done. It remained an unpleasant family affair on the next day of the incident which was tried to be settled, if it could be, within the walls of the family. That failed. It is thereafter only that the complainant, the widow woman, left all by herself and having no male family member willing to accompany her, proceeded alone to the police station. She was lent moral support by Ruldu Ram, the village Panch, whereupon the report of the incident was lodged. The sequence of events soon following the crime and as described by the prosecution witnesses sounds quite natural and provides a satisfactory explanation for the delay. She was lent moral support by Ruldu Ram, the village Panch, whereupon the report of the incident was lodged. The sequence of events soon following the crime and as described by the prosecution witnesses sounds quite natural and provides a satisfactory explanation for the delay. It was found to be so by the learned Sessions Judge. The High Court has not looked into the explanation offered and very superficially recorded a finding of the delay having remained "unexplained" and hence fatal to the prosecution case. It is common knowledge and also a judicial noted fact that incidents like rape, more so when the perpetrator of the crime happens to be a member of the family or related therewith, involve the honour of the family and, therefore, there is a reluctance on the part of the family of the victim to report the matter to the police and carry the same to the court. A cool thought may precede lodging of the FIR. Such are the observations found to have been made by this court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and also in the case of Harpal Singh. We are satisfied that the delay in making the FIR has been satisfactorily explained and therefore does not cause any dent in the prosecution case." 24. Why delay occurred in the present case in loding the FIR has been dealt with hereinabove, therefore, it cannot be said that there was either delay in lodging the FIR or it was the result of deliberations. 25. Reliance was also placed on the following observations of the Supreme Court in State oWrissa v. Mr. Brahniananda Nanda AIR 1976 SC 2488: "Where in a murder case the entire prosecution case depended on the evidence of a person claiming to be eye-witness and this witness did not disclose the name of the assailant for a day and a half after the incident and the explanation offered for non-disclosure was unbelievable, held that such non-disclosure was a serious infirmity which destroyed the credibility of the evidence of the witness and that the High Court was correct in rejecting it as untrustworthy and acquitting the accused." 26. So far legal proposition laid in this decision is concerned, there can hardly be any dispute. So far legal proposition laid in this decision is concerned, there can hardly be any dispute. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case and looking to the age of the victim of sexual abuse by the appellant, we are satisfied I that this case does not in any manner advance the plea urged on behalf of the I appellant to allow this appeal. 27. In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 753, while dealing with minor discrepancies, it was held as under:- Overmuch importance cannot be given to minor discrepancies. Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses therefore, cannot be annexed with undue importance. More so when the all important "probabilities-factor" echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witness." 28. In State of Rajasthan v. Shri Narayan 1992 (3) SCC 615, it was held that delay in lodging FIR involving sexual offence is understandable because it brings in question of morality and chastity of victim and initially hesitation being there to report the matter to the police. 29. Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. 1995 (5) SCC 518. it was held as under:- "A woman who is a victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another persons lust and therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. She is not in the category of a child witness or an accomplice and therefore, the rule of prudence that her evidence must be corroborated in material particulars has no application; at the most the court may look for some evidence which lends assurance." 30. To similar effect is the decision reported in State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj & Ors. 1997 (4) SCC 393. 31. In the absence of injuries of spermotoza, conviction has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Reference in this behalf can be made to the decisions reported in Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam 1998(8) SCC 635 and State of Rajasthan v. N.K. The accused 2000 (5) SCC 30. 32. Supreme Court in State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj & Anr. In the absence of injuries of spermotoza, conviction has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Reference in this behalf can be made to the decisions reported in Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam 1998(8) SCC 635 and State of Rajasthan v. N.K. The accused 2000 (5) SCC 30. 32. Supreme Court in State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj & Anr. 2000 (1) SCC 247, while allowing the appeal of the State and convicting the respondents, held that in the absence of any ulterior motive for falsely implicating the accused, the testimony of the victim of rape when corroborated by medical evidence was found to be reliable and on its basis sentence was imposed. 33. A Division Bench of this court while dealing with a case under Section 376/511 IPC in State of H.P. v. Paras Ram 1998 (3) Crimes 312, convicted the appellant on the evidence of the prosecutrix and also accepted the explanation of 7 days delay in lodging the FIR. 34. Considering the present appeal in the light of the evidence referred to hereinabove, we are satisfied that prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Besides this, evidence of the prosecution leads to one and irresistible conclusion establishing that it was the appellant and none else who had committed the offence in question, as I such no exception can be taken to the judgment passed by the trial Court. 35. No other point is urged. 36. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed and consequently judgment of the trial Court is upheld.