Judgment 1. Vide order dated 5/6-11-97, Rambir accused was convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak in case FIR No. 387 dated 24-11-96 (Sessions case No. 41 of 1997) under S. 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to undergo RI for 8 years and to pay fine of Rs. 4,000.00, in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 3 years. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on24-11-96. Smt. Sushila PW. 10 went to the gitwar at about 2-3 p.m. for bringing dung cakes. She heard the cries of a girl. When she went there, she noticed Rambir accused committing sexual intercourse with Manju d/o Jasvir. (It may be mentioned here that Jasvir is younger brother of Sushilas husband). She raised raula, Rohtash and Samunder came there. They tried to nab Rambir accused. He slipped away from them. Manju was in bad shape. Her private parts were bleeding. Sushila told everything to her husband and Jasbir. She got FIR Ex. PH registered under S. 376, IPC at PS Jhajjar. Manju was medically examined by Dr. Kul Pratibha Medical Officer, CHC, Jhajjar and she found the following :- "On external genital examination, there is lacerated wound 2x2 cm at the Apex of perineum at 5 O Clock position. Bleeding present. On internal genital examination, labia majora completely covering labia minora. On P. V. examination, admits one finger easily, hymen ruptured, posterior commissure is intact. 3 She took off Salwar and kameej worn by her, initialled/signed them, she made them into a sealed parcel. She took vaginal swabs and put them in a bottle which was sealed. Ossification test was performed on her by Dr. M. K. Bishnoi (PW. 2), SMO, General Hospital, Rohtak. As a result of ossification test, she was found below 9 years. Accused was medically examined by Dr. Raj Karan on 27-11-96 at 5 p.m. He did not find anything which could suggest that he was incapable of sexual intercourse. In the school record. Manju was shown to have been born on 15-4-85. Vaginal swabs, salwar and kameej were sent to the chemical examiner. Blood was detected on salwar. No semen could be detected on salwar. Lady Shirt was found stained with numerous small blood stains in the lower region, no semen could, however, be detected. Blood was detected on vaginal swab, no semen was, however, detected. Vaginal swabs, salwar and kameej were sent to the chemical examiner. Blood was detected on salwar. No semen could be detected on salwar. Lady Shirt was found stained with numerous small blood stains in the lower region, no semen could, however, be detected. Blood was detected on vaginal swab, no semen was, however, detected. Similarly, pyjama, shirt and underwear of the accused were sent to the chemical examiner. Pyjama was found stained with a few small blood stains in the inner back region. Semen was also detected on pyjama, shirt was stained with numerous small blood stains especially on its front region and left sleeve. Semen could not be detected on shirt. Underwear was found stained with a few small blood stains in the inner lower region. However, semen could not be detected on underwear. 4. After investigation, accused was charged under S. 376, IPC. Accused was charged under S. 376, IPC by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide order dated 26-2-1997. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. After the conclusion of the trial, accused was convicted and sentenced by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak as indicated above. 5. Feeling aggrieved, accused has knocked the door of this Court through this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State of Haryana and have gone through the record. 6. Manju prosecutrix PW. 9 stated that accused Rambir brought her salwar down and had sexual intercourse with her in their gitwar behind the bushes at about 2 or 3 p.m. on 24-11-96. She stated that she had gone to that gitwar for baking cow dung cakes. Rambir accused was making rounds around that area on a cycle. He parked his cycle near her. He inquired her whether she had seen his buffalo. She remained silent. He picked her from neck and dragged her behind the bushes. There he forcibly raped her. She had pain, her private parts bled. Her tai (aut) Smt. Sushila who had also come towards that side for baking dung cakes heard noise and reached near them. Smt. Sushila also raised raula. Accused Rambir ran away lifting his pyjama. Samunder and Rohtash tried to nab Rambir. He, however, succeeded in running away. Her tai brought her home. To the same effect is the statement of Smt. Sushila PW. 10. As per school record, Manju was born on 15-4-85. Smt. Sushila also raised raula. Accused Rambir ran away lifting his pyjama. Samunder and Rohtash tried to nab Rambir. He, however, succeeded in running away. Her tai brought her home. To the same effect is the statement of Smt. Sushila PW. 10. As per school record, Manju was born on 15-4-85. As per the ossification test, she was below 9 years. It was thus not a case where consent could be pleaded by the accused. State of her vagina suggests that she was subjected to rape. Presence of blood on salwar and shirt worn by her and on the vaginal swabs suggests commission of rape on her. Presence of blood on the pyjama, underwear and shirt of the accused suggests that it was he who violated Manju. 7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that doctor did not find any external mark of injury on any part of the body of Manju. It was submitted that Manju has stated that he picked her from neck and dragged her behind the bushes. It was submitted that if he had picked her from neck and dragged her, there would have been some external mark of injury on some part of her body. Suffice it to say, she may have exaggerated the role of the accused in the commission of rape on her. Manju hails from village Mehrana. Accused also halls from village Mehrana. Rape is alleged to have been committed at 2 p.m. There could thus be no question of mistaken identity. 8. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no independent corroboration to the testimony of Manju and Sushila. Rohtash and Samunder were not produced at the trial. Their non-production at the trial would impinge upon the truth of the prosecution case. Suffice it to say, they were not produced at the trial as they had been won over by the accused. Manju and Sushila were not actuated by any animus to depose against the accused and accuse him of rape. In this case, the statement of Manju was corroborated not only by Sushila but by circumstances also. In our society which is tradition bound and non-permissive, a girl or a woman would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred.. In this case, the statement of Manju was corroborated not only by Sushila but by circumstances also. In our society which is tradition bound and non-permissive, a girl or a woman would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred.. She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down by the society including her own family members, relatives, friends and neighbours. She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives and on her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered, if she is unmarried, she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with a suitable match from a respectable or an acceptable family. In view of these and similar factors the victims and their relatives are not too keen to bring the culprit to book. And when in face of these factors the crime is brought to light there is in built assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. These are observations made by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai V/s. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753 . 9. In my opinion, the charge of rape stood fully brought home to the accused by the prosecution by evidence which is unimpeachable and wholly reliable. He was justifiably convicted and sentenced. 10. Accused was born in 1980. He was 16-17 during the days he committed rape. Leniency could have been shown to him in the matter of sentence but in this case no leniency can be shown to him as he ravished a girl of 11 years of age who was quite raw, could not be used for satisfying the sexual lust of a full grown adult. 11. For the reasons given above, this appeal fails and is dismissed both as regards conviction and sentence. Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak is maintained.