Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 94 (HP)

NARINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2005-04-13

K.C.SOOD, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

body2005
JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—Appellants-Narender Singh @ Billu and Nardev Singh @ Bittu (hereinafter referred to as the accused) faced trial in Sessions Case No. 14 of 2000/Sessions Trial No, 24 of 2000 for the alleged commission of offence of gang rape. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una found both the accused to be guilty and convicted them under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P. Code). They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The case of the prosecution is based on the statement (Ext. PC) of PW-3 the victim of gang rape recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The gist of this statement is that the victim is resident of village Khad, Tehsil Amb, District Una. She had discontinued her study in the year 1998 when she failed in the 7th Class. On 9.2.1999, the victim had gone to Mubarkpur to take medicines from a doctor for treating toothache. On return from Mubarkpur, she boarded a bus up to Bhanjal. There was no bus service from Bhanjal to reach her village. She walked on foot through a short passage leading to her house. When the victim covered distance of about 1 Km. from Bhanjal towards her village at about 12.30 noon, she saw two boys sitting by the side of a "Khud" (rivulet). On seeing her, they got up and one of them caught hold of her arms from back side, lifted and took her behind the bushes where she was forcibly made to lie down on the ground. He called his companion by the name Btttu who gagged her mouth with sweater which he was holding in his hand. Bittu caught hold of her both arms. The first boy opened string of her salwar and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. Bittu continued gagging her mouth as a result thereof she could not raise hue and cry. She gave tooth bite on his right hand. In the meantime, one person happened to pass through the other side of the road and on seeing him both the boys fled from the place of occurrence. She put on her Salwar and proceeded to her house weeping. She gave tooth bite on his right hand. In the meantime, one person happened to pass through the other side of the road and on seeing him both the boys fled from the place of occurrence. She put on her Salwar and proceeded to her house weeping. On the way, she met one person whose name and address she did not know and told him that two boys had committed mischief with her but that person did not say anything and politely went away. She reached at her house at about 1 p.m. and narrated the entire incident to her elder sister PW- 4 Krishna Devi. She did not disclose the entire incident to her mother PW- 5 Smt. Shiv Kumari as she did not want her mother to get perplexed on hearing the incident of rape. Her father was not at home at that time. Later on, PW-4 narrated the entire incident to PW-5. 3. On the same evening, PW-5 scribed one application to PW-7 Chanchla Devi, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Bhanjal which was delivered to her by PW-13 Karnail Singh, elder brother of the victim on the next day The family members and PW-7 had made efforts to identify those boys and ultimately on 21.2.1999, they came to know their names as Narender Singh @ Billu son of Satpal and Nardev Singh @ Bittu son of Yadhuvir Singh both residents of Bhanjal Lower. Statement Ext. P.C. of the victim was recorded by PW-9 Kailash Walia, Sub-lnspector/S.H.O., Police Station, Amb at 6 p.m. when he was on patrolling duty at Bhanjal. On the basis of Ext. P.C formal First Information Report Ext. P.J. was recorded by PW-14 Singh in Police Station, Amb. PW-14 held investigation of the case on 23.2.1999. He visited the spot of the incident and prepared site plan Ext.PS. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused. The victim was sent for medical examination. Both the accused were also medically examined by PW-10 Dr. Patkash Daroch, Medical Officer posted in Primary Health Centre, Amb. On 27.2.1999 Nardev Singh accused produced one Sweater Ext.P-1 which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. P.B. PW-4 produced application Ext. PE to the Investigation Officer which was allegedly given to the Pradhan who returned the same to the family members of the victim. PW-11 Dr. Usha Daroch medically examined the victim on 23.2.1999. On 27.2.1999 Nardev Singh accused produced one Sweater Ext.P-1 which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. P.B. PW-4 produced application Ext. PE to the Investigation Officer which was allegedly given to the Pradhan who returned the same to the family members of the victim. PW-11 Dr. Usha Daroch medically examined the victim on 23.2.1999. She referred the victim to District Hospital, Una for X-ray and expert opinion of Radiologist and Dental Surgeon regarding her age estimation. The pubic hairs and vaginal smeared slides of the victim were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga for analysis. On receipt of the report Ext. PQ of the Scientific Officer, PW-9 also collected medico legal certificate Ext. PQ of the victim and M.L.C. (Exts. PK and PL) respectively of the accused persons. He submitted charge sheet against the accused before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb. 4. The trial of the case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Una by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge assigned the trial of the case to the Additional Sessions Judge, Una for disposal. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed for trial. 5. In order to bring home the accusation, fourteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. simply denied the case of the prosecution and alleged to have been falsely implicated by the family members of the victim at the instance of the Police. They, however cross-examined DW-1 Dr. J.R. Azad in their defence who submitted the report Ext.DW-1/A in regard to the age of the victim ranging between 17 to 19 years. 6. The trial Court found the evidence of PW-3 the victim, PW-4 Krishna Devi her elder sister, PW-15 Smt. Shiv Kumari mother PW-6, Puran Chand uncle of the victim, PW-8 Devinder Kumar, Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bhanjal, PW-12 Rajender Pal, Science Teacher, PW-2 Dr. Vipan Chaudhary, Dental Surgeon, PW-11 Dr. Usha Daroch and PW-14 A.S.I./Investigating Officer corroborated by other documentary evidence cogent and reliable. Placing reliance on their evidence, the trial court found the accused persons guilty of the offence of gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) of I.P. Code and accordingly vide judgment and order dated 3rd/5th September, 2002 sentenced them as aforesaid. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed upon them, both the accused have preferred this appeal. 8. Placing reliance on their evidence, the trial court found the accused persons guilty of the offence of gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) of I.P. Code and accordingly vide judgment and order dated 3rd/5th September, 2002 sentenced them as aforesaid. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed upon them, both the accused have preferred this appeal. 8. We have heard Mr. Ashok Pathania, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. Som Dutt Vasudeva, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. Mr. Pathania raised several contentions. He submitted that the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court is illegal as a result of conjectures and surmises. It was submitted that this is a frame up case against the accused persons and the investigation is unfair. He also contended that there was inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report as the alleged incident had occurred on 9.2.1999 whereas the First Information Report came to be lodged on 22.2.1999. It was also urged that there were omissions, modifications, variations and contradictions in the statements of the relevant witnesses in regard to the age of the victim who is proved to be more than 16 years. The learned counsel also made a grievance that the identification of the accused has not been proved by the prosecution. On all these grounds, the conviction deserves to be set aside. 9. Mr. Som Dutt Vasudeva learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand supported the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. According to him, the delay in filing the F.I.R. by the victim has been explained and further submitted that in view of the analysis of the evidence more especially the testimony of the victim, there is neither error of fact nor an error of law, which deserves interference by this Court in the judgment of the learned trial Court and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. Our attention was invited by the learned counsel for the parties to the prosecution evidence. It is not necessary to deal with all the witnesses but some of the witnesses, whose evidence is relevant, may be discussed. 11. PW-1 Shri Rangila Ram stated in his deposition that at the relevant time, he was posted as Radiographer in District Hospital, Una. Oi\24.2.1999 the victim was referred to him by Dr. Usha Daroch, Primary Health Centre, Amb. It is not necessary to deal with all the witnesses but some of the witnesses, whose evidence is relevant, may be discussed. 11. PW-1 Shri Rangila Ram stated in his deposition that at the relevant time, he was posted as Radiographer in District Hospital, Una. Oi\24.2.1999 the victim was referred to him by Dr. Usha Daroch, Primary Health Centre, Amb. He took eight X-ray films Exts. PA/1 to PA/8 of the victim. He has identified the victim on the basis of identification mark mentioned in the form Ext. PA. He handed over X-ray films to the Police. 12. PW-2 Dr.Vipan Chaudhary who at the relevant time was posted as Medical Officer in District Hospital, Una. On 24.2.1999, the victim was referred to him by Dr. Usha Daroch for determining her dental age. On examination of the victim, he opined that her age was between 14 to 16 years. He made report on the reverse of M.L.C. Ext.PB. In the cross-examination he admitted the suggestion of the defence that bony age and dental age of the patient is supplementary to each other. 13. PW-3 the victim is the star witness. She has stared that on 9th February, 1999 from her house she had gone to Mubarkpur as she was feeling toothache. After taking medicines from a private medical practitioner she came back to her house after boarding a bus from Mubarkpur to Bhanjal. From Bhanjal she was going on foot to her house as no bus plies between Bhanjal to her village. The path to her village passes through a Khud. When she had covered distance of 1 Km. towards her village, she saw two boys sitting on the side of the Khud. When she had crossed the said boys, one of them caught hold of her arms from the back side and lifted her behind the bushes by the side of the Khud. He called his companion by the name of Bittu who too followed the first boy. Bittu gagged her mouth with Sweater which he was holding in his hand. She could not raise cry. The first boy opened the string of her Salwar and laid her down on the ground. Bittu continued gagging her mouth. She had given bites on his hand. The first boy forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. Bittu gagged her mouth with Sweater which he was holding in his hand. She could not raise cry. The first boy opened the string of her Salwar and laid her down on the ground. Bittu continued gagging her mouth. She had given bites on his hand. The first boy forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. On seeing a passer-by on the other side of the Khud both boys ran away from the scene of the occurrence. She put on her Salwar and proceeded to her house weeping. On reaching her house at about 1 p.m. she narrated the entire incident to her elder sister PW-4. She told her mother PW-5 that two boys had committed mischief with her as she did not want to disclose to her mother that she was raped by those two boys since her mother would get perplexed PW-4 in the Evening held written one application to Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Bhanjal which was handed over to the Pradhan by her elder brother PW-13. Pradhan was requested to take action in the matter. She along with her family members and Pradhan made search to identify the whereabouts of those boys and ultimately it was only on 21.2.1999 that the names of two boys who committed forcibly sexual intercourse with her were known to them who are the accused in this case. She got her statement Ext.PC recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. She identified both the accused in the Court stating that the boy who was wearing green colour Sweater was Billu and another boy wearing jacket was Bittu. She was medically examined by the doctors at Amb and Una. She stated that she had studied up to 7th Class and her date of birth is 2.3.1983. She has identified Sweater Ext.P-1 being used by Bittu for gagging her mouth. 14. The victim was cross-examined at length. A suggestion put to her that the occurrence had taken place at about 150 yards from Bus Stand, Bhanjal was denied by her. She has admitted that when she was caught from behind, she could not see the face of the said boy but when the accused took her behind the bushes, she had recognized both the boys from their faces. There were no stones at the place where she was made to lie. She has admitted that when she was caught from behind, she could not see the face of the said boy but when the accused took her behind the bushes, she had recognized both the boys from their faces. There were no stones at the place where she was made to lie. To a question put to her, she had stated that she had cried at full voice but because of being frightened her voice got chocked. A suggestion of the defence that the accused had not committed rape upon her is specifically denied by her. She stated that her father on the day of occurrence was not present in the house. She has admitted the suggestion of the defence that she did not disclose the occurrence to anybody or to any Punch etc. as the incident was not worth telling. She said that the Pradhan of the Panchayat had told her the names of both the accused. She denied the suggestion of the defence that the family members used to purchase grass from the accused. Further suggestion that the accused persons prior to the present incident had given beating to her brother was also emphatically denied by her. Again she denied the suggestion of the defence that at the time of the occurrence her age was more than 18 years. 15. PW-4 Smt. Krishan Devi, elder sister of the victim corroborated that her sister PW-3 on the day of the incident had gone to Mubarkpur for taking medicines as she as feeling toothache and reached back at home at about 1 p.m. She entered the house weeping and told that two boys had committed mischief with her while she was returning through the passage leading to the village. PW-3 had narrated the entire incident to her. The name of one of the boy was Bittu. She narrated the entire incident to PW-5 her mother as her father was not present at the house at that time who came back in the evening and her mother told him about the incident. She had written application Ext.P-3 to the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Bhanjal. She was studying in 9th Class in March, 2002. She denied the suggestion of the defence that the prosecutrix was born in the year-1980. Further suggestion that both the accused were studying with her in school was denied by her. She had written application Ext.P-3 to the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Bhanjal. She was studying in 9th Class in March, 2002. She denied the suggestion of the defence that the prosecutrix was born in the year-1980. Further suggestion that both the accused were studying with her in school was denied by her. She stated that she did not at all know the accused persons. She stated that she did not know the names of the accused but she knew only that one of them is called as Billu and the other as Bittu. She emphatically denied the suggestion of the defence that her parents are inimical towards the parents of the accused. Further suggestion that her brother had quarreled with the accused persons was also denied by her. She said that the victim is also called as Seema. 16. PW-5 Smt. Shiv Kumari is the mother of the victim. In her deposition she stated that on 9.2.1999 the victim had gone to Mubarkpur to take medicines from the Dentist. She came back to her house weeping. She narrated the entire incident to her sister PW-4 who in turn narrated the same to her. Her husband was not at home at that time. He came in the evening and she narrated the whole incident to him. One application was written by PW-4 which was handed over to Pradhan, Gram Panchayat. She along with other family members tried to identify these two boys who sexually assaulted the victim. Later on the Pradhan Gram Panchayat disclosed the names of the accused persons to them. A suggestion of the defence that the victim was more than 18 years old at the time of the incident was specifically denied by her. Further she denied the suggestion that they are inimical towards the accused or their parents. 17. PW-6 Puran Chand was the witness in whose presence the victim had identified the accused persons in the Police Station. He stated that accused Bittu had produced one sweater to the Police used by him for gagging the mouth of the victim which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PD. The victim identified the sweater to be the same being used by Bittu for gagging her mouth. In cross-examination, he admitted the suggestion that the father of the victim is his cousin brother. PD. The victim identified the sweater to be the same being used by Bittu for gagging her mouth. In cross-examination, he admitted the suggestion that the father of the victim is his cousin brother. He admitted that the sweater Ext.P-1 was lying on the table of the Station House Officer when both the accused persons were present there. 18. W-7 Chanchla Devi was the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Bhanjal Lower at the relevant time. It is her statement that on 22nd or 23rd February, 1999 the father of the victim came and handed over one application to her. She advised him to go to the Police Station as the said application did not contain the names of the persons who had committed the offence. The Police called her at Police Station after 2-3 days where both the accused were present. The victim was asked to identify the accused. Thereafter she came out of the Police Station. She was declared hostile. In cross-examination of the learned Public Prosecutor, she admitted that the father of the victim had come to her and told that two boys had committed mischief with his daughter and he had requested her to help him in identifying those boys. She admitted that the meeting of the Panchayat was to be held and she had assured the father of the victim that in the said meeting of the Panchayat she would try to help by making an inquiry to identify the accused. She also admitted that application Ext. PE was presented before her on 22nd/23rd February, 1999 and the meeting of the Panchayat was to be held on 25.2.1999. She denied the suggestion that Rinku brother of the victim had handed over Ext. PE to her on 10.2.1999 and she deliberately kept the application with her up to 21.2.1999. She has stated that she did not know that the accused persons were facing trial for the offence of rape in this case. She identified the accused persons, namely, Billu and Bittu belonging to her village. 19. PW-8 Devinder Kumar was posted as Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bhanjal in September, 1999. He issued birth certificate Ext. PH of the victim to the Police, The date of birth of the victim in the record of births and deaths maintained by the Panchayat was recorded as 2.3.1983. 19. PW-8 Devinder Kumar was posted as Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bhanjal in September, 1999. He issued birth certificate Ext. PH of the victim to the Police, The date of birth of the victim in the record of births and deaths maintained by the Panchayat was recorded as 2.3.1983. In his cross-examination, he admitted that as per the entry in the register the victim was earlier recorded as daughter of Kuldeep but later on her fathers name was recorded Ujjagar Singh but the name of her mother is recorded as Shiv Kumari. He denied the suggestion that the date of birth of the victim has been incorrectly shown in the record. 20. PW-9 Kailash Walia, Sub-Inspector was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, Amb in the year 1999. He recorded the statement of the victim Ext PC on 22.2.1999 which was sent to Police Station, Amb for registration of the case on the basis of which F.I.R. Ext. PG was registered. In cross-examination, he stated that on the day of the incident he along with other police officials was on patrol duty in the area and received the information of the incident from the victim at village Bhanjal. 21. PW-10 Parkash Daroch was posted as Medical Officer in Primary Health Centre, Amb in the year 1999. He examined accused Narender Singh @ Billu and accused Nardev Singh @ Bittu on 28.2.1999. Both the accused persons were found capable of performing sexual intercourse. He issued medico legal certificates Ext. PK and Ext.PL of the accused persons respectively. In cross-examination, he stated that there was no injury on the private and other parts of the body of Nardev Singh, 22. PW-11 Dr. Usha Daroch was posted as Medical Officer in Primary Health Centre, Amb. She stated in her deposition that on 23.2.1999 at about 3.15 p.m. police officials brought the victim for medical examination with the alleged history of sexual assault committed by Bittu on 9.2.1999 at about 12.30 noon at Bhanjal. On examination, she found no signs of struggle, teeth mark or other injury on her person. No injuries like laceration and abrasion were found on the valve and perineum. Vaginal swab was taken for vaginal smear from posterior fornix and slides were prepared. On examination of private parts, the witness stated that vaginal introtus admitted two fingers (index and middle finger of the right hand). No injuries like laceration and abrasion were found on the valve and perineum. Vaginal swab was taken for vaginal smear from posterior fornix and slides were prepared. On examination of private parts, the witness stated that vaginal introtus admitted two fingers (index and middle finger of the right hand). Hymen completely destroyed, margins of hymen were healthy. She referred the victim to District Hospital, Una for X-ray and expert opinion of Radiologist and Dental Surgeon regarding the age estimation of the victim. She noticed obvious signs of vaginal penetration, though the final opinion was reserved till the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner. After the receipt of the Chemical Examiner Report Ext. PO, no hymen semen and human blood was detected on the slides. She stated that her earlier opinion would remain as final. The hymen was healed completely within seven days in healthy condition. She issued medico legal certificate Ext. PQ duly signed by her. In her cross-examination, she stated that there was no injury or mark of violence on the private and other parts of the body of the victim. She admitted that if the rape was committed despite resistance, the injuries were bound to be caused on the persons of assailant and prosecutrix. She admitted that one index finger and one middle finger were admitted in the vagina but she emphatically denied the suggestion that victim was habitual of sexual intercourse. 23. PW-12 Rajinder Pal Singh was posted as Trained Graduate Teacher (Science) in Government Senior Secondary School, Ganari where the victim had studied. He brought the original record of the victim. In school leaving certificate Ext. PR, the victim was stated to have left the school on 20.4.1998. As per the record of the school, the date of birth of the victim was recorded as on 2.3.1983. He denied the suggestion of the defence that the date of birth of the victim had not been recorded correctly. 24. PW-13 Karnail Singh is the elder brother of the victim. In April, 2002 when his statement was recorded by the trial Court, he was serving in the Indian Army as Rangrut. In his deposition he stated that in February, 1999, he was studying in +1. 24. PW-13 Karnail Singh is the elder brother of the victim. In April, 2002 when his statement was recorded by the trial Court, he was serving in the Indian Army as Rangrut. In his deposition he stated that in February, 1999, he was studying in +1. He stated that on 9.2.1999, he came to his house from the school at about 5 or 5.30 p.m. His father handed over one application to him to be delivered to the Pradhan. He delivered the same on the following day. The Pradhan told him that she would enquire and ascertain the names of the accused persons who were involved in the commission of the crime but later on he came to know the names of the accused persons as Narender Singh @ Billu and Nardev Singh @ Bittu. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that Narender Singh accused was his class fellow in the school and once he had picked up a quarrel with him and his family members. He also denied the suggestion that his parents were inimical towards the family of the accused. Again denied the suggestion that a false case has been planted against the accused as the real culprit could not be identified. 25. PW-14 Avtar Singh was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector in Police Station, Amb. On 23.2.1999 he visited the spot of occurrence and prepared site plan Ext.PS. As per the site plan the place of occurrence is located at a distance of 25-30 feet from the deserted path of Khad. He has stated that the regular path to village Khad from Bhanjal is separate than the deserted path passing through the Khud. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and got the victim examined from the doctor He arrested the accused persons who were also got medically examined. On 27.2.1999 he took into possession sweater Ext.P-1 produced by Nardev Singh vide seizure memo Ext. PB. He stated that portion A to A of statement Ext. PF made before him by PW-7 Chanchla Devi, Pradhan of the Panchayat was correctly recorded by him. Ext. PE said to have been presented to PW-7 Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat which was subsequently returned to the complainant party was produced before him by PW-4. PB. He stated that portion A to A of statement Ext. PF made before him by PW-7 Chanchla Devi, Pradhan of the Panchayat was correctly recorded by him. Ext. PE said to have been presented to PW-7 Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat which was subsequently returned to the complainant party was produced before him by PW-4. In cross-examination, suggestion of the defence that there are many houses located in the radius of 100 meters from the place of occurrence was denied by him. He denied the suggestion that there are thorny bushes at the place of occurrence. He sent a constable to call the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat but she did not turn-up. It was suggested to him that he did not visit the spot and had made fictitious proceedings which he emphatically denied. Further suggestion that during the investigation of the case, it came to his notice that the victim is of loose character having affairs and physical relations with other person was categorically denied by him. He denied the suggestion that his investigation revealed that the family members of the victim and that of the accused persons were inimical to each other. 26. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused that application Ext. PE said to have been made to the Pradhan is a tainted document prepared later on simply to cover the delay in lodging the complaint to the Police. We have perused application Ext. PE. As per the version of PWs 3, 4 and 5, the said application was written by PW-4 elder sister of the victim and addressed to PW-7 Pradhan of the area which according to PW-13 elder brother of the victim was delivered by him to the Pradhan on 10.2.1999. The tenor and language of Ext. PE would show that it was written by the parents of the victim in the name of one Seema. PW-7 has denied the receipt of the application on 10.2.1999. As per her version, the father of the victim came to her house on 22nd/23rd February, 1999 and handed over an application to her. She advised him to go to the Police Station and report the incident as the names of the persons who committed the offence were not given in the application. Application Ext. As per her version, the father of the victim came to her house on 22nd/23rd February, 1999 and handed over an application to her. She advised him to go to the Police Station and report the incident as the names of the persons who committed the offence were not given in the application. Application Ext. PE is undated and it cannot be said with certainty that it was prepared by PW-3 on 9.2.1999 and subsequently handed over to PW-7 on 10.2.1999. No reliance can be placed on Ext. PE to prove that it was handed over to PW-7 by PW-13 on 10.2.1999 as alleged by him. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the Investigating Officer has unfairly conducted the investigation implicating the accused persons in a false case. There is nothing coming on the record that the Investigating Officer was inimical to the accused to frame them in a false case. Some minor and insignificant contradictions, omissions or improvements in the evidence of the witnesses are not sufficient to hold that the investigation of the case was tainted and unfair. 27. It was then contended that the victim has not identified the accused persons who sexually assaulted her on 9.2.1999. It is not in dispute that the accused persons were not known to the victim prior to the incident and no identification parade was held by the Investigation Officer. In support of this submission, reliance was placed in the case of Vijayan and others v. State, 1993 Cri.L.J. 2364 (Madras High Court), Siri Ram Sharma v. State, 1995 (2) R.C.R. 197 (Delhi High Court) and Sukhdev alias Bhalla v. State of Haryana, 1994 (1) R.C.R. 404 (Punjab and Haryana High Court). The learned Sessions has considered the ratio of the said decisions in his judgment and has rightly observed that the said decisions turn on the facts and circumstances of those cases and they cannot be applied uniformly in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case, the victim was subjected to sexual assaulted after she was physically lifted to a secluded place by Narender Singh @ Billu accused. Billu called his companion by the name Bittu who followed them behind the bushes. In the present case, the victim was subjected to sexual assaulted after she was physically lifted to a secluded place by Narender Singh @ Billu accused. Billu called his companion by the name Bittu who followed them behind the bushes. Accused Billu made the victim to lie on the ground and removed her Salwar and accused Bittu was continuously gagging her mouth with his sweater Ext.P-1. She had given tooth bite on the hand of Bittu. In this entire process the victim had enough time to recognize the accused persons properly by their faces. The victim has identified sweater Ext.P-1 which was taken into possession by the Police in Police Station, Amb on 27.2.1999 to be the same being used by Bittu for gagging her mouth sweater was seized by the Investigating Officer in the presence of PW-6. It has come in the evidence of the victim. PW-4 and PW-5 that the names of the accused persons were later on told to them by PW-7 Pradhan, Gram Panchayat. PW-7 though denied the testimony of the victim, PWs-4 and 5 that the names of the accused were told to them by her yet her testimony to that effect cannot be relied upon. The version of PW-7 Pradhan of Gram Panchayat appears that she is not speaking truth when she stated that she did not know till the date i.e. 16.3.2002 when her statement was recorded by the Court that the accused were facing trial for the offence of rape in the Court. The victim had identified both the accused in the presence of PW-6 in the Police Station on 27.2.1999 to be the perpetrators of the crime. Her testimony has been corroborated by PW-6 and PW-14 in regard to the identification of the accused persons. The evidence of these witnesses has not been shattered or impeached by the defence in their cross-examination. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused persons that they were not identified by the victim cannot be accepted. 28. Her testimony has been corroborated by PW-6 and PW-14 in regard to the identification of the accused persons. The evidence of these witnesses has not been shattered or impeached by the defence in their cross-examination. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused persons that they were not identified by the victim cannot be accepted. 28. Regarding delay in lodging the First Information Report, the learned counsel for the accused contended that there was delay of 13 days in lodging the First Information Report which casts doubt about the correctness and authenticity of the complaint made by the victim and the unexplained delay was sufficient to hold that the case of the prosecution against the accused persons is false and they deserve to be acquitted. Admittedly the incident took place on 9.2.1999 at about 12.30 noon at a secluded place in a Khud. The victim has deposed on oath that she narrated the entire incident to her elder sister PW-4 who in turn narrated the same to her mother PW-5. The father of PWs-3 and 4 and husband of PW-5 was not at home at that time. When he came in the evening, the entire incident was narrated to him by PW-5. The names of the accused persons were not known to anyone of them. The family members of the victim approached PW-7 to help them to identify the accused persons. It has come in the cross-examination of PW-7 conducted by learned Public Prosecutor that the father of the victim had come to her house and told that two boys had committed mischief with his daughter and he had requested her to help him in identifying those persons. She also stated that she had assured him that in the meeting of the Panchayat she would try to help them by making inquiry about the identity of the accused. She stated that the meeting of the Panchayat was to be held on 25.9.1999 and before that First Information Report was lodged by the victim on 22.2.1999 in the Police Station. The victim belongs to Scheduled Caste family. The evidence of PWs 4 and 5 read with that of the victim clearly explained as to why the First Information Report was lodged after thirteen days. The victim belongs to Scheduled Caste family. The evidence of PWs 4 and 5 read with that of the victim clearly explained as to why the First Information Report was lodged after thirteen days. The victim has clearly stated that her family members were expected that some action would be taken by the Pradhan on their complaint but she did nothing. The evidence of PWs-4 and 5 read with that of the victim clearly explained that they tried to find out the names of the accused persons after holding inquiry but it was only PW-7 Pradhan who disclosed the names and parentage of the accused to them during the investigation of the case. PW-7 assured the parents of the victim that she would take up the incident in the Panchayat for which the meeting was scheduled to be held on 25.2.1999. The matter was already delayed by the Pradhan in disclosing the names of the accused persons. In spite of the lengthy cross-examination, this aspect has not been shaken by the defence. In State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh, (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 421, their Lordships held : (See P-426 Para-9) "9. Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging 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 possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay, the same would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court, the same cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution version, as was done by the High Court in the present case." 29. From the evidence on record noticed hereinabove, the prosecution has explained the delay satisfactorily. In a tradition-bound and conservative society, more particularly in rural area, to which the victim and her family members belong, the shame of sexual assault on a minor girl cannot be lost sight of. From the evidence on record noticed hereinabove, the prosecution has explained the delay satisfactorily. In a tradition-bound and conservative society, more particularly in rural area, to which the victim and her family members belong, the shame of sexual assault on a minor girl cannot be lost sight of. Thus it cannot be said that there was undue and unexplained delay which was deliberate with a view to falsely implicate the accused persons. Thus, we do not accept the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. therefore the accused persons are entitled for acquittal on this ground alone. 30. Regarding the determination of the age of the victim above 16 years, the learned counsel has relied upon the evidence of DW-1 Dr. J.R. Azad Radiologist. Dr. Azad on examination of the X-ray of the victim opined that her age ranged between 17 to 19 years. In cross-examination, he stated that it is not 100% sure test and the development of bones and joints etc. depends upon the climate, diet etc. As per the opinion of Dr. Azad, the radiological age of the victim was not 100% sure test. The prosecution has proved the age of the victim by overwhelming evidence. To begin with, there is the evidence of PW-2 Dr. Vipan Chaudhary that on determination of the dental age of the victim, her age was between 14 to 16 years. His evidence has not been shattered by the defence. This statement is corroborated by Ext. PH a certified copy of the relevant entry in the births and deaths register produced by PW-8, Devender Kumar, Secretary Gram Panchayat which shows that the victim was born to Smt. Shiv Kumari wife of Ujjagar Singh on 2.3.1983. There is yet another document viz. Ext. PR, which is an entry in the admission register maintained at the Government Senior Secondary School, Ganari (wherein the victim was a student) and which is proved by PW-12 Rajinder Pal Singh T.G.T. The entry states the date of birth of the victim as 2.3.1983 daughter of Ujjagar Singh. The entries were made by the concerned officials in the discharge of their official duties, that it is, therefore clearly admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act and that it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine its author. The entries were made by the concerned officials in the discharge of their official duties, that it is, therefore clearly admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act and that it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine its author. The victim in her deposition categorically stated that her date of birth is 2.3.1983 and her version was further corroborated by her mother PW-5. The occurrence had taken place on 9.2.1999. In the teeth of the oral testimony corroborated by the above said documentary evidence corroborated by the evidence of the Dental Surgeon, the victim was less than 16 years on 2.9.1999 when she was sexually assaulted by the accused persons. This contention of the learned counsel that the victim was more than 16 years of age does not merit acceptance. 31. It is now well established that if the court is satisfied from the evidence of the victim a conviction can be solely based on such evidence without looking for further corroboration. The same can be done because the prosecutrix is no more treated as an accomplice in the crime. (See: State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh, (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 421; State of H.P. v. Shree Kant Shekari, (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 153; State of Chhattisgarh v. Derha, (2004) 9 Supreme Court Cases 699). 32. It is in the light of the above settled proposition of law that we have scrutinized the evidence of the victim. Her evidence is straightway reliable and trustworthy. She has stated that when she was passing through the Khud, two boys were sitting there and out of them one boy caught hold of her arms from the backside and lifted her on the other side of the Khud behind the bushes. He called his friend by the name of Bittu who followed them. Bittu gagged her mouth with sweater Ext. P-l. The boy who laid her on the ground behind the bushes opened the string of her Salwar and forcibly assaulted her sexually. She tried to raise cry but her mouth was gagged with the sweater by Bittu. She had given tooth bite on his hand. She was released by the accused from their clutches when they noticed one passer-by going by the other side of the Khud and then they ran away from the scene of the occurrence. She tried to raise cry but her mouth was gagged with the sweater by Bittu. She had given tooth bite on his hand. She was released by the accused from their clutches when they noticed one passer-by going by the other side of the Khud and then they ran away from the scene of the occurrence. She came to her house weeping and narrated the entire incident to her elder sister PW-4 who later on narrated the incident to her mother PW-5 in the evening. When the father of the victim came home, PW-5 narrated the entire incident to him. The testimony of the victim has not been shattered or impeached by the defence. The accused has taken contradictory inconsistent pleas to contend that they have been falsely implicated by the prosecution witnesses at the instance of the Police. A suggestion was put to the victim in the cross-examination that the accused persons had given beatings to her brother prior to this incident which she emphatically denied. Another suggestion that her family members used to purchase grass from the accused was also denied by her. A suggestion was put to PW-4 that both the accused persons were studying in her school which she denied. Further, she denied the suggestion that her brother had quarrel with the accused persons. PW-13 Karnail Singh elder brother of the victim denied the suggestion of the defence that Narender Singh accused was his class fellow in the school and once he had pick-up quarrel with the said accused and his family members. He also denied the suggestion of the defence that his parents were inimical towards the family of the accused. The suggestions which have come in the cross-examination of PWs-3, 4 and 13 as also PW-14 the Investigating officer merely say that there was enmity between the accused and those of the parents of the victim. Neither the nature of enmity nor gravity of the same has been stated; therefore, that explanation would be of no assistance to the accused to establish the fact that they have been falsely implicated. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused persons that as no injuries were found on the private part of the victim, the testimony of the victim that she was forcibly raped by the accused persons cannot be accepted as the victim was examined by PW-11 Dr. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused persons that as no injuries were found on the private part of the victim, the testimony of the victim that she was forcibly raped by the accused persons cannot be accepted as the victim was examined by PW-11 Dr. Usha Daroch on 23.2.1999 whereas the occurrence had taken place on 9.2.1999. Doctor stated that one index finger and one middle finger were admitted in the vagina of the victim and hymen was completely destroyed. The doctor in specific terms in the cross-examination had stated that the victim is not habituated to sexual intercourse. The fact that PW-10 Dr. Parkash Daroch did not notice any injury of tooth bite on the right hand of Bittu as alleged by the victim will not be of much help to him because both the accused were medically examined on 28.2.1999 i.e. 19 days after the incident in question. We do not find any material omission, variation or contradiction in the evidence of the victim to disbelieve, discard and discredit her testimony. 33. No other point was urged by the learned counsel for the parties. 34. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, it cannot be said that by convicting the accused persons, illegality has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. The case property shall be dealt with as directed by the learned trial Court. Appeal dismissed.