( 1 ) APPELLANT Dhoor Singh stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 366, IPC and sentence to R. I. for five years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default whereof to R. 1. for three months. He has further been convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (f), IPC and sentenced to R. 1. for ten years with fine of rs. 2000/-, in default whereof to R. I. for one year, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 26-5-2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Raisen in Sessions Trial no. 128/2000. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 22-6-2000, prosecutrix Dhanno alias dhanwati (PW-4) had gone to forest to collect Gullis. She was accompanied by saraswati alias Ghuttal (PW-3) and Bhuriya bai (PW-2 ). At about 2. 30 p. m. when the three girls were collecting Gullis, appellant dhoor Singh reached there. He was armed with bow and arrows. He caught hold of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix pulled her hands and tried to escape. The other girls accompanying her also tried to escape but the appellant did not allow the prosecutrix to escape and again caught hold her hands. The appellant threatened the prosecutrlx to shoot her. Dhanwati was badly frightened due to threats of the appellants. Appellant took the prosecutrix to a hillock and committed rape on her. After commission of rape, the appellant told the prosecutrix not to disclose anybody about the incident. He also gave her an allurement of giving a watch of rs. 1,000/-, if she will refrain from informing other persons about the incident. Appellant kept the prosecutrlx with him in the forest till It was quite dark. Thereafter, he threatened the prosecutrix that if she will disclose the Incident to anyone, she will be done to death. ( 3 ) SARASWATL Bai (PW-3) Immediately after the incident of kidnapping reached to the house of the prosecutrlx and informed the mother of the prosecutrix regarding the incident. Mother of the prosecutrix rushed to the spot but the prosecutrix and the appellant were not found there. Thereupon, she went to her husband Roop Singh (PW-1) who was working in the forest and informed him of the incident. The parents of the prosecutrix made a thorough search of the prosecutrix in the forest but she could not be traced. Therefore, they went to police station, Noorganj and lodged report, Ex. P-1. Thereupon, she went to her husband Roop Singh (PW-1) who was working in the forest and informed him of the incident. The parents of the prosecutrix made a thorough search of the prosecutrix in the forest but she could not be traced. Therefore, they went to police station, Noorganj and lodged report, Ex. P-1. They returned back at about 12 O'clock in the night and found the prosecutrlx in their house. Prosecutrix informed her parents about the incident. ( 4 ) IN the next morning the prosecutrix was taken to police station, Noorganj where-from she was sent for medical examination. Dr. Sonali (PW-9) examined the prosecutrix and found her hymen ruptured. She expressed that no definite opinion regarding commission of rape on the prosecutrix can be given. Ex. P-4 is her report. Lady doctor recovered underwear of the prosecutrix and also collected her vaginal smear and prepared two slides of the same. The slides and underwear were handed over to the police constable concerned in a sealed packet. ( 5 ) THE appellant was arrested and he was also sent for medical examination. Dr. S. S. Rajput (PW-8) examined the appellant and found him capable of sexual intercourse. Ex. P-3 is the report of Dr. Rajput. ( 6 ) AFTER investigation, a challan was filed against the appellant for the aforesaid offences. ( 7 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded that he has been falsely Implicated by the villagers. ( 8 ) ON the basis of the above prosecution case, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution established its case against the appellant and as such, vide the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. ( 9 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant, he filed this appeal. ( 10 ) I have heard Shri L. P. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ku. Mamta Billore, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, and perused the record of the trial Court. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant led me through the record and contended that the learned Sessions Judge erred in accepting the prosecution evidence. Mamta Billore, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, and perused the record of the trial Court. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant led me through the record and contended that the learned Sessions Judge erred in accepting the prosecution evidence. He submitted that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant are illegal, bad and incorrect and as such are liable to be set aside. ( 12 ) ON the other hand, Ku. Mamta billore, learned Panel Lawyer, supported the judgment and order, convicting and sentencing the appellant as indicated above. ( 13 ) PROSECUTRIX Dhanwati Bai (PW-4) has stated that on the relevant date, she was collecting Gullis in the forest along with saraswati Bai and Bhuriya Bai. At the time appellant, armed with bow and arrows, reached there, caught hold of her and took her near a pond. Saraswati Bai and Bhurlya bat immediately ran away. Then the appellant committed rape on her. At about 11 p. m. the appellant took her towards village and left her at the outskirt of the village, where from she went to her house. In her house, she narrated the incident to her parents and sister. ( 14 ) THE evidence of prosecutrix has been corroborated by her mother Bhuriya Bai (PW-2) and Roop Singh (PW-1 ). Bhuriya Bai (PW-2) has stated that the two girls, namely saraswati Bai and Bhuriya Bai informed her that the appellant had kidnapped her daughter dhanwati Bai,. therefore, she along with two girls went to her husband at the place where he was working. A search of her daughter was made but she could not be traced. In the night, her daughter returned home and informed her about the incident. Roop Singh (PW-1), the father of the pros-ecutrix has also corroborated the prosecution story. ( 15 ) THE evidence of prosecutrix and her parents has further been corroborated by makhan (PW-5), who stated that in the morning the prosecutrix informed him about the incident, and also by the medical evidence of Dr. Smt. Sonali (PW-9) who found the hymen of the prosecutrix ruptured. Dr. S. S. Rajpur (PW-8) has also stated that the appellant was examined by him. He found the appellant capable of sexual intercourse. ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecutrix is a child witness. Children are most unworthy class of witnesses. Smt. Sonali (PW-9) who found the hymen of the prosecutrix ruptured. Dr. S. S. Rajpur (PW-8) has also stated that the appellant was examined by him. He found the appellant capable of sexual intercourse. ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecutrix is a child witness. Children are most unworthy class of witnesses. They can be tutored easily, therefore, the evidence of child witness requires substantial corroboration before acting upon it. ( 17 ) IT cannot be laid down as an infallible rule that in no case the evidence of a child below a particular age should be accepted or acted upon. Every case must depend on its own facts. In view of the observation of the Sessions Judge who had opportunity to see the witness and watch her demeanour, the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be discarded on the ground of danger of her being tutored. ( 18 ) ON carefully examining the statement of the prosecutrix as recorded by the trial court, I find that her evidence is free from any defect. The same fairly impresses and can safely be regarded as true disclosure of the facts as occurred. The evidence of prosecutrix cannot be rejected simply because it has come from a girl of tender age. The witness is aged about ten years. She has sufficiently matured understanding. ( 19 ) THE evidence of the prosecutrix has been further corroborated by the evidence of her parents and also medical evidence. Prosecution case is further corroborated by the FIR lodged by the father of the prosecutrix at police station, Noorganj. ( 20 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant next contended that' there is delay of nine hours in lodging the FIR and it is a circumstance which provides legitimate basis for suspecting that the prosecution introduced improvement and embellishment and set up a distarted version of the prosecutrix. ( 21 ) THE contention cannot be accepted. Reason for delay in lodging the FIR has been given. The parents of the prosecutrix first tried to search the prosecutrix and when they failed, the father of the prosecutrix lodged the FIR. In such circumstance, the delay does not raise an inference that the complaint was false. In the circumstances of the case, delay in lodging the FIR alone cannot be said to be vital. The parents of the prosecutrix first tried to search the prosecutrix and when they failed, the father of the prosecutrix lodged the FIR. In such circumstance, the delay does not raise an inference that the complaint was false. In the circumstances of the case, delay in lodging the FIR alone cannot be said to be vital. ( 22 ) AS stated, on careful scrutiny of the evidence I find nothing unnatural in the conduct of the prosecutrix. Normally, no girl or her parents would come forward to make humiliating statement against the honour of the girl, therefore, evidence of the prosecutrix and her parents cannot be discarded lightly. The testimony of the victim in case of sexual offence is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, court should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of victim of sexual assault. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every rape case. ( 23 ) IN this case the evidence of the prosecutrix is not only corroborated by her parents and other witnesses, but the presence of tear on the vagina of the prosecutrix also justifies the statement of the prosecutrix that there had been a rape on her. ( 24 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that the rape is alleged to have been committed on rough surface. Had it been so, some kinds of abrasions were bound to appear on the back of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix is a young girl of tender age, therefore, she could not resist the sexual assault. When at the time of sexual act the prosecutrix was wearing clothes, it is not necessary that there should be some injuries on her back or other part of the body. ( 25 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant also submitted that the vaginal smear of the prosecutrix was collected and sent to FSL, sagar but no report of FSL has been filed, therefore, an adverse inference must be drawn. Even if the report of FSL has not been filed and the evidence of the prosecutrix is corroborated by other circumstances and the same inspires confidence, the non-filing of the report of FSL will not cause any dent to the prosecution case. Even if the report of FSL has not been filed and the evidence of the prosecutrix is corroborated by other circumstances and the same inspires confidence, the non-filing of the report of FSL will not cause any dent to the prosecution case. ( 26 ) FROM the evidence of the prosecutrix and other witnesses accompanying the girl it is quite clear that she was forcibly taken away by the appellant to satisfy his lust who committed rape on her. Therefore, the offence under Section 366, IPC is made out against the appellant. ( 27 ) FROM the evidence of the parents of the prosecutrix and other witnesses, it is also established that the age of the girl was below twelve years at the time of sexual assault on her, therefore, the appellant is guilty of the offence punishable under sub-section (2), Clause (f) of Section 376, IPC. ( 28 ) THE learned trial Judge in his judgment has discussed the evidence in detail. The findings of the trial Court are based on cogent reasons. Therefore, the findings cannot be disturbed in appeal. ( 29 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellant. The sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court for the alleged offences cannot be said to be harsh or unjust in any manner. In case of rape on a girl below twelve years of age, law requires that the punishment should not be awarded less than ten years of R. I. It is expected that the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentence or taking too sympathetic view will result a counter product in the long run and against social interest. The object of the Court should be to protect the society and to deter criminal by imposing appropriate sentence. I do not find any reason much less special and adequate reason to award sub minimum sentence. ( 30 ) THE appeal is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant as indicated above is hereby maintained. Appeal dismissed. .