Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. Judgment dated 13.3.2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Karnal convicting the accused-appellant Rajesh Kumar (hereinafter to be referred as `the accused) under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 376(2)(F) IPC, has been called in question by way of the instant appeal. 2. The facts inviting the prosecution against the accused and leading to the culmination of the trial as unfolded by complainant Meena, mother of the prosecutrix (name not disclosed) before ASI Bhim Singh, are that out of her four children, prosecutrix aged about 7 years is the eldest one. On 28.12.2000, in the evening she along with the prosecutrix had gone to see the Sandha (Chhuchhak) ceremony of the sister of the accused namely Smt. Simla, who had delivered female child at her matrimonial house. At about 5 p.m. when complainant was busy in seeing the items, the prosecutrix disappeared. In the meantime, Sh. Alla diya, husband of the complainant also arrived there, they could not spot the prosecutrix. In the meantime, on hearing cries of the prosecutrix from inside the bathroom, they saw accused fleeing away after opening the door of the bathroom. At that time, he was closing the zip of his pant and the prosecutrix was lying naked on the floor of the bathroom. Her Nikar was below the knees and she was bleeding from the vagina. On enquiry, the prosecutrix disclosed that the accused had induced her by paying one rupee and took her in the bathroom and put her male organ into her vagina. 3. At this, the complainant and her husband took the prosecutrix to Civil Hospital, Nilokheri where the prosecutrix was uncooperative and her external examination was very painful, therefore, the doctor at Nilokheri had referred her to General Hospital, Karnal where she was medically examined. 4. On receipt of ruqa Ex.PP from CHC Nilokheri, ASI Bhim Singh reached Civil Hospital, Nilokheri and thereafter, in the General Hospital at Karnal and recorded the statement of the complainant which was followed by registration of FIR Ex.PM/1. During investigation Investigating Officer also took into possession the underwear of the prosecutrix and the vaginal slides as handed over to him by the doctor. The prosecutrix remained admitted in the hospital at Karnal from 28.12.2000 to 4.1.2001. Dr. During investigation Investigating Officer also took into possession the underwear of the prosecutrix and the vaginal slides as handed over to him by the doctor. The prosecutrix remained admitted in the hospital at Karnal from 28.12.2000 to 4.1.2001. Dr. Jyoti Shukla PW2, on the request of police Ex.PF, gave an opinion Ex.PF/1 that possibility of the commission of rape cannot be ruled out. The Investigating Officer also visited the place of occurrence; prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PR; arrested the accused on 28.12.2000; got him medico-legally examined from Civil Hospital, Nilokheri; took the underwear of the accused into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PS. On 13.12.2000, he took into possession one rupee coin Ex.P6 vide recovery memo Ex.PN. 5. On 2.1.2001, after seeking fitness certificate from the doctor, he recorded the statement of the prosecutrix Ex.PT/1. On completion of investigation, the accused was challaned in Court. Charge under Section 376(2)(F) of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as `the Code) was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. While seeking the conviction of the accused, prosecution examined PW1 Dr. A.P. Bhatia, who conducted the medico-legal examination of the accused- appellant on 29.12.2000 at 6 p.m. at CHC Nilokheri, opined that there was nothing to suggest that the accused was not fit to commit sexual intercourse. PW2 Dr. Jyoti Shukla, who conducted medico-legal examination of the prosecutrix on 28.12.2000 at 11.40 p.m. at General Hospital, Karnal observed as under : "Patient was conscious, well-oriented to time, place and person. Gait was wide with slight limping, pulse 98 p.m. and B.P. was 120/70, mm of Hg. EXTERNAL EXAMINATION Minor abrasions present on the left side of cheek and right side of chin. Abrasion was present on left thigh on medial aspect measuring 1.5 & 2 cms. Abrasion present on right thigh on medial aspect of size .5 x 2 cms. On Local Examination : BPV was present midline tear of perineal skin posteriorly was present of size 1 x.5 cm. P.V. : Hymen ruptured. BPV was present, vaginal introitus admitting one finger. A tear in the vaginal mucosa and muscles was present on the posterior vaginal wall of size 2 x .5 cm. which was bleeding. Same was stitched with comic catgut Perennial tear also stitched." 7. P.V. : Hymen ruptured. BPV was present, vaginal introitus admitting one finger. A tear in the vaginal mucosa and muscles was present on the posterior vaginal wall of size 2 x .5 cm. which was bleeding. Same was stitched with comic catgut Perennial tear also stitched." 7. She gave her report vide endorsement Ex.PF/1 and opined that rape upon the prosecutrix could not be ruled out. PW3 HC Ishwar Singh, PW4 Constable Dalbir Singh, PW5 Constable Jaspal Singh and PW6 SI Baljinder Singh are the formal witnesses. PW7 Raj Kumari, Principal of Govt. Primary School, Manak Majra Roran, while bringing the school record of the prosecutrix, deposed that her date of birth as per school record was 26.1.1994. She was admitted in 1st Class in that school. PW8 Smt. Meena is the complainant. She has reiterated the prosecution version as set up in the FIR. PW9 Ruksana is the prosecutrix. She has also deposed the circumstances undergone by her at the time of rape and the manner in which the accused induced her and took her into the bathroom and committed rape upon her. PW10 ASI Jai Singh is the author of FIR Ex.PM/1. PW12 ASI Bhim Singh is the Investigating Officer. 8. On closure of the prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in this case due to enmity. Despite the opportunity, the accused did not lead any evidence in defence. 9. I have heard Sh. Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the accused-appellant and Ms. Shalini Attri, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and have scrutinised the records of the case very carefully. 10. Not much has been urged to assail the age of the prosecutrix yet the prosecution did not leave any stone unturned to establish that she was only 6 years and 11 months old at the time of occurrence. School record Ex.PL where she was admitted in 1st Class, reveals that her date of birth was 26.1.1994 and this occurrence took place on 28.12.2000. No evidence in rebuttal has been brought to surface in order to establish if she was not a small kid but of mature understanding and intelligence. She also gave her age as 9 years while appearing in the witness box. No evidence in rebuttal has been brought to surface in order to establish if she was not a small kid but of mature understanding and intelligence. She also gave her age as 9 years while appearing in the witness box. It is also not in dispute that the accused- appellant was about 19-20 years of age at the time of committing this mischievous act on the prosecutrix (6-7 years old). 11. No evidence of enmity could be culled out from the records either from the suggestions to the witnesses or by way of independent evidence led by the accused-appellant at the relevant time. No such evidence has been led which could tilt the scales of justice and Court could be persuaded to hold that the case was the result of enmity. It is not such a case where the prosecutrix wasted some time to go to the house and informed her parents but it is a case where the accused was seen running from the place of occurrence after the commission of the crime and the prosecutrix also deposed the facts to her parents which form the part of res gestic. No time has been wasted by complainant Meena in getting registered a case. Occurrence took place at about 5 p.m., the police station was at a distance of 3 kilometres and ASI Bhim Singh completed the statement of Meena including the proceedings recorded by him at 8.30 p.m., it means that the complainant must have reached him within two hours, therefore, this little delay of two hours in lodging the FIR, assumes no significance specially when the prosecutrix aged about 7 years, a victim of rape, appearing in the witness box, tore her abdomen and vomitted out the facts which happened with her. She, while appearing as PW9, categorically deposed that the accused had given her a coin of one rupee and took her in bathroom and put his male organ into her vagina and she was seen bleeding by her mother and her father. Complainant Meena while appearing as PW8, has fully supported the prosecution case. 12. The argument that none from the ladies, who had gathered there at the spot, was examined is of no consequence. The testimony of the complainant as well as the prosecutrix can not be discarded merely on the ground that they are interested witnesses. Complainant Meena while appearing as PW8, has fully supported the prosecution case. 12. The argument that none from the ladies, who had gathered there at the spot, was examined is of no consequence. The testimony of the complainant as well as the prosecutrix can not be discarded merely on the ground that they are interested witnesses. The prosecutrix would be the last person to throw dust over the accused for nothing. Similarly the complainant will not put her own reputation and that of her daughter at peril even if she was developing any vendetta against the accused in her mind. In any case, not to bank upon creditworthy testimony of the complainant, and to ask for corroboration of the testimony of a nine years old prosecutrix, who had the courage to depose against the accused while appearing in the witness box would amount to adding insult to the injury suffered by her. The Court is to go by quality of evidence and not the quantity. It has been observed in case Rafiq v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1980 Crl.L.J. 1344 Justice Krishan Iyar observed as follows : "When no woman of honour will accuse another of rape since she sacrifices thereby what is dearest to her, he cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist on corroborative testimony, even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken to by the victim strikes a judicial mind as probable ........... When a woman is ravished what is inflicted is not merely physical injury but the deep sense of some deathless shame....... Judicial response to human rights cannot be blunted by legal bigotry." Similarly, in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirajibai v. State of Gujrat, 1983(2) RCR(Criminal) 192 : 1983 Crl.L.J. 1096, Thakkar, J. of Supreme Court observed with some anguish as under : "In the Indian setting refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury......A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracised by the society...And when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light there is a built-in assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated ......". 13. The prosecutrix in this case was also of tender age so in view of the aforesaid authority, which was followed in case Mukesh v. The State, 1987(2) RCR(Crl.) 226 (Delhi), the solitary testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient to establish beyond doubt the guilt of accused under Section 376 IPC. But in this case, Medical evidence also corroborates the testimony of the prosecutrix. Though no plea regarding the possibility of injuries in the vagina due to fingering on the part of the appellant has been initially raised, yet the same now raised by the counsel at this stage, cannot be believed because the reports of FSL Ex.PG and Ex.PG/1 support the prosecution case that blood stains were detected on the Nikar and vaginal swabs of the prosecutrix and the underwear of the accused were stained with human semen. Medical Officer Dr. Jyoti Shukla PW2, who conducted examination of the prosecutrix, found that there were two tears on private part of the prosecutrix, one was perineal skin posteriorly and the second was in the vagina mucose and muscles of the size of 1 x .5 cm. and 2 x .5 cm. respectively and there was catgut bleeding and tear to be stitched by the Medical Officer. Thus the medical evidence also speaks to the volumes about the heinous act committed by the accused-appellant upon the prosecutrix. Besides the medical evidence, testimony of Meena PW also corroborates the testimony of prosecutrix. 14. The other feeble argument that Dr. A.P. Bhatia deposed the date of the examination of the accused as 19.12.2000, appears to be flimsy because it could occur due to the slip of pen. The Investigating Officer moved the application before the Medical Officer on 29.12.2000 pursuant to which medical examination was conducted, therefore, the date must have been mistakenly recorded as 19.12.2000. 15. A.P. Bhatia deposed the date of the examination of the accused as 19.12.2000, appears to be flimsy because it could occur due to the slip of pen. The Investigating Officer moved the application before the Medical Officer on 29.12.2000 pursuant to which medical examination was conducted, therefore, the date must have been mistakenly recorded as 19.12.2000. 15. I also do not countenance the argument that the girl of tender age, could depose anything out of tutoring because here in this case the conviction is not being maintained on her solitary testimony but his testimony stands corroborated by the testimony of her mother as well as the medical evidence coupled with the evidence of Forensic Science Laboratory also. In our society, people cannot afford levelling of such a heinous charge by their daughter of tender age in the absence of strong militating circumstances against her veracity. The after-effects of sexual abuse are very grave and it is not expected that a false charge will be levelled unless there is serious enmity. In this case, nothing has been suggested or proved, therefore, I do not find any reason to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix specially when her evidence finds corroboration from other sources. 16. No other argument has been raised. 17. While coming to the quantum of sentence, the prosecutrix was of 7 years age when she fell prey at the hands of desperate youth (accused) and was ravished, nothing mitigating has been detected or pointed out to bestow some leniency upon him. To my mind, the sentence already awarded in the given circumstances of the case against him, is on the lower side. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the appeal. The same is hereby dismissed.