MUKTESHWAR PRASAD, J. This criminal appeal by accused Harzeet Singh is directed against the judgment and order dated 2-7- 1981 passed by Sri J. N. Bansal, the then Sessions Judge, Lalitpur whereby he convicted the accused under Sections 376 and 323 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and six months respectively thereunder. 2. In brief, facts of the prosecution case are as under: P. W. 4 Smt. Meera, wife of Hardu Rawat, a resident of Sagar, P. S. Girar, District Lalitpur handed over a written report at P. S. Girar on 10-9-1980 at 5. 30 p. m. and on the basis of her report, a case at crime No. 23 was registered against Harzeet Singh and Govind Singh under Sections 376/323 I. P. C. 3. On 9-9-1980 at about 10. 00 a. m. Smt. Meera was going towards Jungal to ease herself from her house. On the way, she met her co-villagers Harzeet Singh and Govind Singh. Both asked her to run away with them but she refused to oblige them. They lifted her and took her to the Jungal. She was continuously threatened by both the accused and thereafter Harzeet Singh committed rape upon her. Accused Govind Singh also committed rape upon her forcibly. She continuously raised alarm but none reached there to rescue her. Again they asked her to run away but she did not agree to accompany. Thereafter, they assaulted her with Lathies and gave blows on her legs and hands. She raised hue and cry, which attracted her husband Hardu and her mother-in- law. When Meeras husband and mother-in- law reached there, the accused ran away. Smt. Meera was unable to move on account of injuries. She was brought home by her husband and mother-in-law. After sometimes, both the rapists arrived at the house of prosecutrix and asked her husband not to lodge any F. I. R. failing which they would be killed. 4. On 10-9-1980 at about 11. 00 a. m. Hardu reached police outpost Dhorisagar and brought a constable to his house and then Meera accompanying by his mother-in-law and husband reached P. S. Girar and lodged the report. 5. 4. On 10-9-1980 at about 11. 00 a. m. Hardu reached police outpost Dhorisagar and brought a constable to his house and then Meera accompanying by his mother-in-law and husband reached P. S. Girar and lodged the report. 5. After registration of the case, the investigation was taken up by S. I. Ashok Kumar Nath the then S. O. , who interrogated Meera, her mother-in-law, Hardu, constable Kallu Singh and Prasant Kumar Jain, scribe of the written report. On 12-9-1980 I. O. visited the place of incident and prepared site plan. He collected broken bangles from the spot and prepared a Fard. 6. The prosecutrix was sent to combined District Hospital Lalitpur for medical examination. After completing the investigation, the I. O. submitted charge-sheet against accused Harzeet Singh. Co- accused Govind Singh was charge-sheeted as an absconder. 7. After committal of the case, accused Harzeet Singh was charged under Sections 376 and 323 I. P. C. to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. The prosecution in support of its case examined eight witnesses in all including prosecutrix, her husband Hardu, Muluwa, a witness of recovery of broken bangles from the spot and the Doctors who examined the prosecutrix on 11-9-1980 and the I. O. 9. Accused Harzeet Singh in his statement evidence under Section 313 Cr. P. C. totally denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded his false implication on account of enmity. According to him, the witnesses were on inimical terms. No evidence was led in defence. 10. After close scrutiny and scanning of the evidence led by the prosecution and considering the arguments also, learned Judge found the testimony of the prosecutrix reliable and concluded that the charges against accused were proved beyond all reasonable doubt. He, therefore, found the accused guilty of both the charges framed against him and convicted and sentenced as noted above. 11. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has come up in appeal. 12. I have heard appellants learned counsel at length, learned A. G. A. and perused the entire record carefully. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the judgment under appeal mainly on the grounds that no spermatozoa was found in vaginal smear and there was no injury at all on the private part of the lady. 12. I have heard appellants learned counsel at length, learned A. G. A. and perused the entire record carefully. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the judgment under appeal mainly on the grounds that no spermatozoa was found in vaginal smear and there was no injury at all on the private part of the lady. The prosecutrix was a woman of loose morals and she was first of all married in Madhya Pradesh and she married second time with Hardu in District Lalitpur. According to him, the incident of Marpit was given a colour of rape and the I. O. did not take the clothes of the prosecutrix in custody and no Fard recovery was prepared. It was also urged that sufficient delay took place in lodging the F. I. R. 14. On the other hand, learned A. G. A. contended that delay if any, was satisfactorily explained by the prosecutrix in her report itself. She and other members of the family were threatened by the accused not to lodge a report. It was also submitted that the I. O. recovered broken bangles of the lady from the scene of incident and this circumstance further strengthens the prosecution case and the trial Court rightly found the accused guilty. 15. After having given by anxious consideration to the entire arguments made on behalf of parties and material on record, I find that no illegality was committed by the Court below in appraisal and scrutiny of the evidence on record and the learned Judge was wholly justified in convicting the appellant under Sections 376 and 323 of the Penal Code. 16. First of all, I find that incident in question took place on 9-9-1980 at about 10. 00 a. m. and a F. I. R. was lodged next day at 5. 30 p. m. There is sufficient and reliable evidence on record of P. W. 1 Dr. K. C. Gupta, P. W. 4 Smt. Meera and P. W. 2 Hardu that Smt. Meera was assaulted mercilessly with lathies by the accused and his companion on 9-9-1980. Dr. Gupta found as many as nine injuries in all which included four contusions and two contused swelling on different parts of the body of Smt. Meera. Dr. Gupta gave out in clear words that injuries of Smt. Meera could be caused at about 10. Dr. Gupta found as many as nine injuries in all which included four contusions and two contused swelling on different parts of the body of Smt. Meera. Dr. Gupta gave out in clear words that injuries of Smt. Meera could be caused at about 10. 00 a. m. on 9-9-1980 and injuries were two days old at the time of examination. He further opined that injuries No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 were caused by blunt object and injury Nos. 1, 7 and 9 could be caused by friction. P. W. 2 Hardu disclosed in unambiguous words that he and his mother reached the scene of incident on hearing the hue and cry raised by his wife and saw Harzeet Singh and Govind Singh assaulting his wife with lathies on her hands and legs. Thus, it is crystal clear from the testimony of Dr. K. C. Gupta, Smt. Meera and her husband Hardu that the accused and his associate assaulted Smt. Meera with lathies and caused several injuries at about 10. 00 a. m. on 9-9-1980. It has also come in the statement of Smt. Meera that she was not in a position to reach her house. Therefore, in view of the physical condition of the lady on account of injuries caused to her by the accused and the threat given by the accused to the family of the prosecutrix not to lodge a report, I find that delay, if any, in lodging F. I. R. has been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. It is well settled that delay of few days in case of sexual offences is not very material and is not at all fatal. It is, therefore, crystal clear that Smt. Meera was assaulted mercilessly by the accused on 9-9-1980 at about 10. 00 a. m. in the Jungal. 17. Now the next relevant question is whether the appellant committed rape on Smt. Meera on the impugned date and at the place as alleged by the prosecution. It is well settled now that corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix in rape case is not essential. In other words, the Apex Court has made it clear that corroboration of the testimony of the lady before recording a finding of conviction is not a sine-qua-non. This was held in several cases including State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh and others, 1996 SCC (Criminal) page 316. In other words, the Apex Court has made it clear that corroboration of the testimony of the lady before recording a finding of conviction is not a sine-qua-non. This was held in several cases including State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh and others, 1996 SCC (Criminal) page 316. In the instant case, the prosecutrix supported her allegations in toto and testified that on the impugned date, she was going to attend the call of nature towards Jungal. The appellant and Govind Singh met her on the way and persuaded her to run away with them. On her refusal, she was picked up by them and was taken to Jungal. She was thrown out on the ground and was threatened. According to her, she was first of all raped by the appellant and his associate Govind Singh was holding her hands. She resisted and in the course of resistance her bangles were broken. She was crying and made all efforts to free herself but all in vain. Govind Singh also satisfied his lust of sex. After committing rape upon her, both again asked her to run away and on her refusal, she was assaulted with lathies. She raised alarm. When she was being assaulted, her husband and mother-in- law arrived there and then the accused took to their heels. The prosecutrix was cross-examined extensively on two dates but there is nothing on record to disbelieve her testimony. It is noteworthy that the prosecutrix is a rustic, illiterate lady of the village and has affixed her thumb impression. In this view of the matter, minor discrepancies in her statement do not make the prosecution case doubtful. In my opinion, the statement of the lady inspires confidence and is wholly reliable. 18. She admitted that she was married in Madhya Pradesh but she was having no issue from her first husband. She gave birth to two children out of the second wedlock and after birth of two children, the incident of rape took place. In this view of the matter, there was no question of any injury on the private part of the lady. Admittedly, the prosecutrix was a married woman and she was used to sexual intercourse. 19. There is reliable statement of P. W. 3 Muluwa and the I. O. that broken bangles had been recovered from the place of occurrence and a Fard was prepared. Admittedly, the prosecutrix was a married woman and she was used to sexual intercourse. 19. There is reliable statement of P. W. 3 Muluwa and the I. O. that broken bangles had been recovered from the place of occurrence and a Fard was prepared. This statement of Muluwa finds support from the testimony of Smt. Meera. 20. It is true that clothes of the prosecutrix were not taken into custody by the I. O. and no Fard was prepared. However, this omission on the part of the I. O. does not weaken the prosecution case. 21. In view of the foregoing discussion of the evidence on record as well as arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and material on record, I conclude that the learned trial Judge was wholly justified in holding the appellant guilty for committing the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 323 of the Penal Code. I find no illegality in conviction of the appellant. So far as sentence is concerned, the law provides that the rapists shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, which shall not be less than seven years. Thus I find that the learned Judge has awarded the minimum sentence prescribed under the law. I, therefore, hold that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the trial Court are hereby maintained. He is on bail. His bail is cancelled. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out sentence imposed on him. 23. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the Court concerned for information and compliance of the order. Compliance report be submitted to this Court within two months. Appeal dismissed. .