JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—Since both these appeals arise out of the same judgment dated 27.3.2003/1.4.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, whereby the appellants (hereafter referred to as the accused persons) have been convicted and sentenced. Therefore, both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. Accused Devi Singh has been convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 376, IPC and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months under Section 363 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 3,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 366, Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 3,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 376, IPC, and accused Puran Chand has been convicted under Section 376 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 3,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. Case of the prosecution is that accused Devi Singh used to call Sat Pal (PW-13), a resident of Sugyali in Chamba District, as Mamu and used to visit his house off and on. On 14.3.2001 accompanied by his wife Kamla and her father Pritho, he went to the house of PW-13. On that day the prosecutrix then aged 13 years and a student of 4th class and her younger brother Anil Kumar (PW-14) were present in the house and PW-13 was not there. Accused Devi Singh told the prosecutrix that her father had called her to Chamba and she should accompany them to Chamba. The prosecutrix then went to Chamba with accused Devi Singh and his companions. In the evening when PW-13 came to his house he found that the prosecutrix was not present in the house. He was informed by Anil Kumar that she had gone with Devi Singh, Kamla and Pritho. PW-13 started a search for his daughter but in vain. Finally, on 18.3.2001 he reported the matter to the police at Police Station Sadar, Chamba, where FIR Ext. PB came into being and the investigation followed. He was informed by Anil Kumar that she had gone with Devi Singh, Kamla and Pritho. PW-13 started a search for his daughter but in vain. Finally, on 18.3.2001 he reported the matter to the police at Police Station Sadar, Chamba, where FIR Ext. PB came into being and the investigation followed. On 23.3.2001, information was received at Police Station, Chamba, from Police Post Saluni that the prosecutrix and accused Devi Singh were brought to the Police Post by one Hans Raj and they were detained at the Police Post. On receipt of this information, SI Sukh Dev (PW-17) accompanied by PW-13 went to Saluni. The prosecutrix was then handed over to the care and custory of PW-13 vide Memo. Ext. PO. The prosecutrix was got medically examined and her dental and skeleton age was got ascertained. The MLC in this regard is Ext. PH, the opinion about the dental age of the prosecutrix is Ext. PL and opinion about her skeleton age is Ext. PK. As per the opinion Ext. PL the prosecutrix was about 13 years of age and as per the opinion Ext. PK her skeleton age was between 13 to 15 years. At the time of her medical examination her pubic hair, vaginal smear and Salwar were taken in possession by Dr. Biij Bala Sharma (PW-4), for being sent for chemical analysis. During investigation it was found that the prosecutrix was subjected to rape on different dates at different places by the accused persons. On arrest of the accused they were also got medically examined and as per MLCs Ext. PA and Ext. PB both of them were found sexually potent. At the time of medical examination of accused Devi Singh his smegma, smear, pant and public hair were taken in possession and similarly smegma and underwear of accused Puran Chand were taken in possession for chemical analysis. As per the report Ext. PH received from the State Forensic Science Laboratory, blood and human semen were found on the pant of accused Devi Singh, blood was found in pubic hair of the accused persons, human blood and human semen were found on the underwear of accused Puran Chand and human semen was found in vaginal smear and Salwar of the prosecutrix. As per the school leaving certificate Ext. PC, entries in the admission and withdrawal register of the School Ext. PD; admission form Ext. As per the school leaving certificate Ext. PC, entries in the admission and withdrawal register of the School Ext. PD; admission form Ext. PN and the certificate Ex. PE issued by the concerned gram panchayat, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 15th of September, 1987. During the investigation the police also found involvement of Pritho, Karmo Ram and Bajro in facilitating the commission of the offences by accused persons and accordingly the concerned SHO submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons and the aforesaid persons. Accused Devi Singh was tried on a charge under Sections 363, 366 and 376, IPC, accused Puran Chand was tried on a charge under Section 376, IPC and others, namely, Pritho, Karmo and Bajro were tried on a charge under Section 368, IPC. 3. To prove the charges against the accused persons and the other charged persons, prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses. Accused were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C, wherein they denied the case of the prosecution as a whole. The accused, however, did not lead any defence evidence. On consideration of the evidence on record the trial Court acquitted Pritho, Karmo and Bajro and admittedly their acquittal has become final. However, the accused persons were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, Criminal Appeal No. 287/2003 has been preferred by accused Devi Singh and Criminal Appeal No, 288/2003 has been preferred by accused Puran Chand. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State and have also gone through the records. 5. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that there is no cogent and reliable evidence to prove that at the time of the occurrence the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age and the prosecutrix who voluntarily accompanied the accused, remained with the accused for about 10 days and admittedly was not in confinement but did not complain about the occurrence to anyone, therefore, it is case of sex with consent, therefore, the impugned conviction and sentences cannot be sustained. 6. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General while supporting the judgment urged that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 7. 6. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General while supporting the judgment urged that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 7. To prove the age of the prosecutrix at the relevant time, the prosecution relied on the evidence of the prosecutrix, her father (PW-13), Santosh Kumari (PW-1), Surinder Kumar (PW-8) and Kanto Ram (PW-2), the documentary evidence consisting of copy of school admission registers Exts. PD and PN, copy of School Leaving Certificate Ext. PC, copy of school admission form Ext. PM, birth certificate issued by the Panchayat Ext. PE and medical opinions about the dental land skeleton age of the prosecutrix Exts. PL and PK. 8. The prosecutrix (PW-14) and her father (PW-13) have deposed that date of birth of the prosecutrix is 15.9.1987. These statements are fully corroborated by the entries in school records relating to the prosecutrix vide Exts. PC, PD, PM and PN and birth certificate Ext. PE issued from the concerned Panchayat. All these entries are proved by the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and P-8. As per these entries the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 15.9.1987 which is further supportable on the basis of the opinion Exts. PL and PK by Dr. V.K. Pathak (PW-5) whereby it had been opined that dental age of the prosecutrix is about 13 years and skeleton age 13 to 15 years. There is nothing material on the record to disbelieve the above referred oral and documentary evidence. On the contrary, entry in the copy of Pariwar Register Ext. DA also shows that date of birth of the prosecutrix is 15.9.1987 and thus at the time of the occurrence she was about 13-1/2 years of age. Therefore, the contention of the learned defence counsel that the prosecutrix is not proved to be below 18 years of age at the relevant time is without any merit and substance. 9. It is in the evidence of the prosecutrix that on 14.3.2001 her father had come to Chamba and she was at the residence alongwith her younger brother (PW-15). Accused Devi Singh alongwith his wife and Pritho came there and told her that her father had called her to Chamba and he went to Chamba with them. 9. It is in the evidence of the prosecutrix that on 14.3.2001 her father had come to Chamba and she was at the residence alongwith her younger brother (PW-15). Accused Devi Singh alongwith his wife and Pritho came there and told her that her father had called her to Chamba and he went to Chamba with them. On reaching at Chamba Devi Singh told her that her father was at Chamera Temple where marriage of her elder brother was going to be solemnised and she was then taken to the temple where she was informed by accused Devi Singh that her father was in the house of his in-laws where she was finally taken. Her statement is fully corroborated by PW-15 about arrival of accused Devi Singh with Pritho and Kamla at their residence and informing the prosecutrix that her father had asked her to come to Chamba and the prosecutrix then leaving her house with accused Devi Singh and his companions to go to Chamba. There is nothing in the statements of PW-15 and the prosecutrix to discredit the evidence of PW-14 and PW-15. It is thus fully established that the prosecutrix who at the relevant time was about 131/2 years of age was made by accused Devi Singh to leave her house for Chamba on the false pretext that she was called to Chamba by her father and this was done with the intent to compel her to illicit intercourse. Therefore, the contention of the learned defence Counsel that the prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied the accused is also devoid of any merit and substance. 10. The prosecutrix has stated that from the house of the in-laws of accused Devi Singh in village Jarunda, where accused Puran Chand had also joined, she was taken to the house of sister of accused Puran Chand, namely, Khelo in village Samra where she was kept from 15.3.2001 to 20.3.2001 and on each day she was subjected to rape by accused Puran Chand. On 20.3.2001 she was taken by accused Devi Singh to his house in village Bhadran where he committed rape on her. On the following day accused Devi Singh removed her to the village Diar and was kept in the jungle for the night and was subjected to rape by accused Devi Singh. On 20.3.2001 she was taken by accused Devi Singh to his house in village Bhadran where he committed rape on her. On the following day accused Devi Singh removed her to the village Diar and was kept in the jungle for the night and was subjected to rape by accused Devi Singh. From Diar she was taken to the house of Hans Raj in village Shailly who getting suspicious took them to police post Saluni. It is further her evidence that when she was raped by accused Puran Chand and later by accused Devi Singh, she raised alarm but none came to her rescue. There is nothing in her cross-examination which may go to the root of the case or create suspicion about her evidence regarding having been raped by the accused persons. 11. It is by now well settled that in cases involving sexual offences the inferential considerations having no direct and material bearing on the evidence of the prosecutrix and discrepancies in her statement unless fatal to the case, should not be treated as grounds for discrediting confidence inspiring version of the prosecutrix. While appreciating the testimony of a victim of sexual molestation, it has to be borne in mind that no self respecting woman would come forward just to make a humiliating statement against her honour as in a rape case. It is more so, in the case of an unmarried girl. Therefore, there should be no difficulty to act on the statement of the prosecutrix who is not an accomplice but victim of the crime and conviction can be based on her confidence inspiring statement. In case the Court is hesitant to place full reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix, it may take into account the other evidence which may lend assurance to her statement. (See: State of Maharashtra v. Chander Prakash Kewal Chand Jain, AIR 1990 SC 658; State of Punjab v. Gunnit Singh and others, 1996 Cr.L.J. 1728 and Dabe Ram v. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2003 (HP) 440). 12. In the case in hand, the statement of the prosecutrix is not only cogent, consistent and confidence inspiring but is corroborated by Medical evidence. It is evident from the contents of MLC Ext. PH read with the statement of Dr. 12. In the case in hand, the statement of the prosecutrix is not only cogent, consistent and confidence inspiring but is corroborated by Medical evidence. It is evident from the contents of MLC Ext. PH read with the statement of Dr. Brij Bala Sharma (PW 4) who medically examined the prosecutrix on 23.3.2001 at about 4 p.m. that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse. As per the report Ext. PG, human semen was found on Salwar (Ext. P- 2) of the prosecutrix and her vaginal swab Ext. P-3, showing that the prosecutrix had been subjected to sexual intercourse. 13. At the relevant time the prosecutrix was about 13 1/2 years of age. Therefore, the contention that the prosecutrix was a cosnenting party in accompanying the accused and to the acts of sex with her by the accused because while with the accused person for about 10 days she did not complain of their acts to anyone is of no help to the accused. Even otherwise there is no factual foundation for the contention that the prosecutrix ever consented to the acts of the accused persons. On the contrary, the unrebutted evidence of the prosecutrix is that she was fraudulently removed from the house and when subjected to rape she did raise alarm but none came to her rescue. Keeping in view the fact that the prosecutrix was raped at the places where none of her near relations was available, this evidence is quite natural and trustworthy. 14. In view of the above discussion there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Therefore, no interference by this Court is called for. 15. As a result both these appeals merit dismissal and are accordingly dismissed. 16. Before parting, I would like to place on record my appreciation for the assistance rendered to this Court by the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the accused.