JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. By the imputed judgment and order, dated 14.09.98, passed, in Sessions Case No. 156 (S)/97, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, the accused-Appellant stands convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. 2. The prosecution case against the accused-Appellant, as projected at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus: The victim, 'X', a female person, aged below 16 years and a student of class VI, is the daughter of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3. On the day of the occurrence, when the parents of 'X' had gone out to work in the field, the accused-Appellant, taking advantage of the absence of the parents of the victim, entered into the house, forcibly dragged the victim to the bed-room, put her on the bed lying there and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. Taking advantage of the absence of the parents of the victim from their house, the accused-Appellant came, on quite a few occasions, to the house of the victim and had sexual intercourse with her. After about two months of the first sexual intercourse, which the accused-Appellant so had with the victim, the victim's menstruation cycle stopped and when her mother, initially, took her to a doctor, she was diagnosed to be a patient of malaria and accordingly given some medicines. As her condition did not improve, the victim was brought by her father to the Civil Hospital, Tezpur, where, on examining the victim, the doctor found her pregnant. When enquired by her parents, the victim told them that it was the accused Cheniram Rajowar, who had sexual intercourse with her and made her pregnant. The victim's father, then, called for a 'mel' (i.e. the meeting of the elders of the society); but the accused did not admit that he was the one through whom the victim had become pregnant. Left with no alternative, the victim's father lodged a written complaint with the police and a case was accordingly registered against the accused under Sections 493 / 376 IPC. During the course of investigation, the victim was medically examined and the doctor opined that she was below the age of 17 years. Left with no alternative, the victim's father lodged a written complaint with the police and a case was accordingly registered against the accused under Sections 493 / 376 IPC. During the course of investigation, the victim was medically examined and the doctor opined that she was below the age of 17 years. The doctor also opined that she also running pregnancy of about 24 weeks. On completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet against the accused under Sections 493 / 376 IPC. 3. To the charge framed against the accused-Appellant, at the trial, under Section 376 IPC, the accused-Appellant pleaded not guilty. 4. In support of their case, the prosecution examined altogether six witnesses. The accused-Appellant was, then, examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. In his examination aforementioned, the accused-Appellant denied that he had committed the offences alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. On finding the accused-Appellant guilty of the charge framed against him under Section 376 IPC, the learned trial Court convicted the accused-Appellant accordingly and passed sentence against him as mentioned hereinabove. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence passed against him, the accused-Appellant has preferred this appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned Counsel, for the accused-Appellant and Mr. K. Munir, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, for the State. 6. While considering the present appeal, what is of paramount importance to note is that the fact that the victim was a student of class VI as the time of the alleged occurrence has not been disputed at the trial nor is it in dispute in the present appeal. In this backdrop, when I examine the evidence of the victim's father (P.W. 1), I find that his evidence is that at the time of the occurrence, his daughter was aged about 13 years. This assertion of P.W. 1 has gone completely unchallenged by the defence. In the face of the uncontroverted and unassailed evidence of P.W. 1 that at the time of the alleged occurrence, his daughter was aged about 13 years and a student of class VI, one cannot but believe the evidence so given by P.W. 1. 7. This assertion of P.W. 1 has gone completely unchallenged by the defence. In the face of the uncontroverted and unassailed evidence of P.W. 1 that at the time of the alleged occurrence, his daughter was aged about 13 years and a student of class VI, one cannot but believe the evidence so given by P.W. 1. 7. An attempt has, however, been made, at the time of the hearing of the present appeal, to show that the victim's mother (P.W. 3) has admitted, in her cross-examination, that she would not be able to tell the age of the victim. While considering the evidence given by P.W. 3, what is of immense importance to note is that the fact that the victim was a student of class VI, as deposed to even by P.W. 3, has not been disputed by the defence. This apart, P.W. 3, as correctly noticed by the learned trial Court, is a rustic woman of a village, who has no idea of date, month and year. The candid evidence of such a simple, rustic and illiterate woman that she is not aware as to what exactly the age of her daughter is, cannot reduce the probative value of the evidence of P.W. 1, whose categorical and unassailed assertion is that the victim was, at the time of the alleged occurrence, aged about 13 years. Hence, by pointing out to the weakness of the evidence of P.W. 3, the value of the evidence of P.W. 1, which has, otherwise, remained unassailed and unshaken, cannot be reduced and/or discarded. Situated thus, I see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 1 and/or not to place reliance thereon. So construed, the evidence of P.W. 1 is sufficient to hold that the victim was aged about 13 years at the time of the alleged occurrence. 8. It may also be noted that though the victim (P.W. 2) was medically examined by P.W. 5, the fact remains that no ossification test was performed in the present case and, hence, the opinion of the doctor that the victim was below the age of 17 years can neither destroy nor dilute the effect of the evidence of P.W. 1 that the age of the victim, at the relevant point of time, was about 13 years. 9. 9. Because of what have been pointed our above, I do not see any infirmity in the conclusion reached by the learned trial Court that the victim was, at the time of the alleged occurrence, below the age of 16 years. 10. Bearing in mind the above finding as regards the age of the victim, let me, now, turn to the question as to whether the conviction of the accused-Appellant under Section 376 IPC can be maintained? While considering this aspect of the matter, it is worth noticing that it is the victim (P.W. 2) around whose evidence revolves the entire case of the prosecution. Her evidence is, therefore, most material and her evidence is that at the time of the occurrence, when her parents had gone out to the field to work, the accused-Appellant came to their house, caught hold of her, dragged her to their bed-room, put her on the bed, which was lying there, and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. It is also in the evidence of P.W. 2 that in this manner, the accused-Appellant had sexual intercourse, on quite a few occasions, with her and after about two months, when her menstruation cycle stopped, she was taken to a doctor by her mother, the doctor diagnosed her to be a patient of malaria and prescribed some medicines therefore, but as her condition of health further deteriorated, her father took her to the Civil Hospital, Tezpur, where, on examining her, the doctor found her pregnant and, then, on being asked as to how she had become pregnant, she told her parents that it was because of the sexual intercourse, which the accused-Appellant had with her that she had become pregnant, whereupon her father called a meeting of their co-villagers, but the accused-Appellant denied, in the meeting, that he ever had sexual intercourse with her. The fact that P.W. 2 has been taken by her mother to a local doctor, who had diagnosed P.W. 2 to be a patient of malaria and prescribed some medicines accordingly, has not been disputed by the defence. The fact that P.W. 2 has been taken by her mother to a local doctor, who had diagnosed P.W. 2 to be a patient of malaria and prescribed some medicines accordingly, has not been disputed by the defence. It was also not disputed by the defence that P.W. 2, as deposed to by her, was brought to the Civil Hospital, Tezpur, and, on examining her, the doctor had found her pregnant and it was, then, that on query made by her parents that P.W. 2 revealed to her parents that it was the accused-Appellant, Cheniram, through whom she had become pregnant and that her father, then, called a meeting of their co-villagers in this regard and, in this meeting, the accused-Appellant denied that he had made P.W. 2 pregnant and it was then that her father lodged an Ejahar has remained unshaken and, in fact, admitted. 11. The only question, therefore, which fells for consideration, in the present appeal, is as to whether the accused-Appellant had sexual intercourse with P.W. 2, for, the age of the victim (P.W. 2) being less than 16 years, it was immaterial as to whether the sexual intercourse, which the accused-Appellant allegedly had with the victim, was with or without consent of the victim. In this regard, what is of utmost importance to note is that the victim (P.W. 2) is the best witness, who could have deposed as to how she had become pregnant. Her evidence is, therefore, of great value to determine if the accused-Appellant really had sexual intercourse with her. Though it is true that P.W. 2 had remained silent about the sexual intercourse, which the accused allegedly had with her, for about two months, what is crucial to note is that her explanation that it was out of shame that she had not told anyone about the sexual intercourse, which the accused-Appellant had with her, cannot be rejected outright as unbelievable. Far from this, what I notice is that the evidence given by P.W. 2 to the effect that the accused-Appellant came to their house on quite a few occasions and had sexual intercourse with her has remained unshaken. Situated thus, I find it frightfully difficult not to rely on the evidence of P.W. 2. 12. Far from this, what I notice is that the evidence given by P.W. 2 to the effect that the accused-Appellant came to their house on quite a few occasions and had sexual intercourse with her has remained unshaken. Situated thus, I find it frightfully difficult not to rely on the evidence of P.W. 2. 12. In view of the above, I do not find that the learned trial Court committed any illegality in reaching the conclusion that it was at the hands of the accused-Appellant that P.W. 2 had become pregnant. Now, in view of the fact that P.W. 2 was, according to the evidence on record, below the age of 16 years, the sexual intercourse, which the accused-Appellant had with P.W. 2, amounted in nothing less than 'rape' within the meaning of Section 375 IPC, for, the age of P.W. 2 being less than 16 years, it is not material whether the sexual intercourse, which the accused Appellant had with P.W. 2, was or was not with the consent of P.W. 2. The conviction of the accused-Appellant under Section 376 IPC is, therefore, well-funded and cannot be interfered with. 13. Because of what have been pointed out above, I see no reason to interfere with the sentence passed against the accused-Appellant, particularly, when the sentence passed against the accused-Appellant is far less than what the same, statutorily, ought to have been. 14. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this appeal fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 15. Send back the LCRs. Appeal dismissed