JUDGMENT Sham Sunder, J.:-This appeal, filed by Sajjan, accused-appellant, from jail, is directed against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, dated 17.11.1999 rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby it convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of ten years, and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, for the offence, punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code ( hereinafter called as ‘the IPC’). However, he was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the prosecutrix ( her name is not being recorded in this judgment, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court ), aged about 10 years, is one of the daughters of Raj Kumar, complainant, resident of H.No. 6775, Gali No. 2, Mohalla Preet Nagar, Ludhiana. Sajjan Kumar, accused, and one Lambu had occupied one room, in the house of the complainant, as tenants. On 22.11.1996, Sushil Rani, wife and Sonu, elder son of the complainant went to work in a factory,as usual, at about 8.00 AM. All the three daughters of the complainant were present in the house. The complainant, his father and his maternal uncle Raj Kumar, went to New Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana, to enquire about the health of Sai Dass Verma, another maternal uncle of the complainant. At about 10.30 a.m., the complainant, his mother Raj Rani, and Raj Kumar returned to the house from New Shivaji Nagar, and when they reached the courtyard of the house, the complainant heard the cries of the prosecutrix for help. The complainant and Raj Kumar, PW7, at once went to the upstairs,from where the shrieks of the prosecutrix were emanating. They saw that the accused was committing rape, on the prosecutrix by laying her on the floor of the room. The salwar of the prosecutrix had been removed. On seeing the complainant and Raj Kumar, aforesaid, the accused took his nicker upwards, lifted his pant, pushed away the witnesses and escaped. The blood was oozing out of the vagina of the prosecutrix. After narrating the incident, to the complainant , she ( prosecutrix) became unconscious. The complainant and his mother took her to Civil Hospital Ludhiana. On seeing the complainant and Raj Kumar, aforesaid, the accused took his nicker upwards, lifted his pant, pushed away the witnesses and escaped. The blood was oozing out of the vagina of the prosecutrix. After narrating the incident, to the complainant , she ( prosecutrix) became unconscious. The complainant and his mother took her to Civil Hospital Ludhiana. Report about the occurrence Ex.PW6/A was lodged by the complainant on 22.11.1996 at 7.55 P.M. in Civil Hospital Ludhiana, with Dalip Kumar, ASI, PW9, the Investigating Officer. The prosecutrix was medico-legally examined by Dr. J.K. Sidhu in Civil Hospital, Ludhiana on 22.11.1996. The accused was arrested on 28.11.1996 from the house of his uncle Gopal Chand. After the completion of investigation, the challan was presented. 3. On his appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, charge under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined the prosecutrix as PW8. She deposed, in terms of the prosecution version. Raj Kumar PW6, is the father of the prosecutrix, who deposed in terms of the contents of Ex.PW6/A. Raj Kumar, PW7, uncle of the prosecutrix, also corroborated the statement of PW6. Dr. J.K. Sidhu, Medical Officer, who medico-legally examined the prosecutrix, appeared in the witness box as PW1. She deposed that the prosecutrix got recorded her age as 10 years. For her medical examination, dressing was removed which was soiled with blood to the extent that the blood was trickling on the side of dressing. There were few clots of blood, on dressing, and vagina was full of clots. Vagina admitted two fingers under anesthesia. Hymen was torn and margins were oozing. There was a tear about 3 cm long, in the lateral fornixes, extending to vaginal wall. Muscles underneath were exposed. There was a spurt, in the centre of tear, which was caught and legated. She also proved report Ex.PW1/A. Dr. U.S. Sooch, EMO, who sent information Ex.PB, regarding the admission of the prosecutrix in the hospital on 22.11.1996 at about 12.30 PM, as alleged case of rape, appeared in the witness box as PW2. Muscles underneath were exposed. There was a spurt, in the centre of tear, which was caught and legated. She also proved report Ex.PW1/A. Dr. U.S. Sooch, EMO, who sent information Ex.PB, regarding the admission of the prosecutrix in the hospital on 22.11.1996 at about 12.30 PM, as alleged case of rape, appeared in the witness box as PW2. Harminder Singh, Draftsman, appeared in the witness box as PW3, and proved the site plan Ex.PW3/A. Dr. Ashok Raswant, Radiologist, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, PW4, conducted the Ossification test of the prosecutrix for determining her age. According to him, the age of the prosecutrix was between 10 to 12 years. Dr. S.K. Sharma, Medical Officer, PW5, deposed that on 14.12.1996 , he medico-legally examined Sajjan Kumar ,accused and found that there was nothing to suggest that he was unable to do sexual intercourse. ASI Dalip Kumar, who is the Investigating Officer, appeared in the witness box as PW9. Thereafter, the Addl. PP for the State, closed the evidence of the prosecution. 5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded, and he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. However, he admitted that he was a tenant, in the house of the complainant , father of the prosecutrix, on the relevant day. He further admitted that one Lamboo was also a tenant, in that house, and he ( Lamboo) committed rape with the prosecutrix. He further submitted that the parents of the prosecutrix wanted him to vacate the room. He had refused to do so, as a result whereof, he was falsely implicated, in the present case. He ,however, did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. After hearing the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore. 7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the accused/appellant. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 9. It is settled principle of Criminal jurisprudence, that the prosecution, is required to prove its case, against the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 9. It is settled principle of Criminal jurisprudence, that the prosecution, is required to prove its case, against the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court is not required to act on mere suspicion, conjectures or surmises or suspicious circumstances, to bring home the guilt to the accused. However, the reasonable doubt, should not be stretched to far, to pick holes, in the prosecution story, so as to disbelieve and distrust the same, just on minor and inconsequential discrepancies, and unwarranted basis. In Gurbachan Singh vs. Sat Pal AIR 1990 Supreme Court 209, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that reasonable doubt, is simply that degree of doubt, which could permit a reasonable and just man to come to a conclusion. Reasonableness of doubt, must be commensurate with the nature of offence, to be investigated. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt, must not nurture fanciful doubts, and lingering suspicions, and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile, on the plea, that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape, is not doing justice, according to law. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1998, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that it is necessary to remember that a judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely to see, that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that guilty man does not escape. One is as important, as the other. Both are public duties, which the Judge has to perform. 10. Before touching the merits of the case, in the light of the evidence, on record, in the first instance, it must be stated here, as to what approach, the Court should adopt, while evaluating the prosecution evidence, particularly the evidence of the prosecutrix, in sex related offence. Is it essential that the evidence of the prosecutrix should be corroborated in material particulars, before the Court bases a conviction on her testimony? Does the rule of prudence demand that in all cases save the rarest of rare, the Court should look for corroboration before acting on the evidence of the prosecution? Is it essential that the evidence of the prosecutrix should be corroborated in material particulars, before the Court bases a conviction on her testimony? Does the rule of prudence demand that in all cases save the rarest of rare, the Court should look for corroboration before acting on the evidence of the prosecution? Let us see, if the Evidence Act, provides the clue to this riddle. Under the Evidence Act, evidence means and includes all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it, by the witnesses, in relation to the matters of fact, under inquiry. Under Section 59 of the Evidence Act, all facts, except the contents of documents, may be proved by oral evidence. Section 118 then illustrates, as to who may give oral evidence. According to that Section , all persons are competent to testify, unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions, put to them, or from giving rational answers, to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind. Even, in the case of an accomplice, Section 133 provides that he/she shall be a competent witness, against an accused person, and the conviction is not illegal, merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. However, illustration (b) to Section 114, which lays down a rule of practice, says that the Court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated, in material particulars. Thus, under Section 133, which lays down a rule of law, an accomplice is a competent witness, and the conviction based solely on his uncorroborated evidence, is not illegal, although in view of Section 114 illustration (b) the Courts do not, as a matter of practice, do so, and look for corroboration, in material particulars. This is the co-joint effect of Sections 133 and 114 illustration (b). 11. In State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain with Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain & Anr. 1990(2) Chandigarh, Law Reporter 228 (SC), it was held as under:- “A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. 1990(2) Chandigarh, Law Reporter 228 (SC), it was held as under:- “A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as it attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence, as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person, who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act, similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which required it to look for corroboration. If for the same reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation, in accepting her evidence. We have, therefore, no doubt, in our minds, that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix who does not lack understanding must be accepted. The degree of proof required must not be higher than is expected of an injured witness. We have, therefore, no doubt, in our minds, that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix who does not lack understanding must be accepted. The degree of proof required must not be higher than is expected of an injured witness. For the above reasons we think that exception has rightly been taken to the approach of the High Court as is reflected in the following passage:- “It is only, in the rarest of rare cases if the Court finds that the testimony of the prosecutrix is so trustworthy truthful and reliable that other corroboration may not be necessary.” With respect, the law is not correctly stated. If we may say so, it is just the reverse. Ordinarily, the evidence of prosecutrix, must carry the same weight as is attached to an injured person, who is a victim of violence, unless there are special circumstances which call for greater caution, in which case it would be safe to act on her testimony, if there is independent evidence lending assurance to her accusation. We think it proper, having regard to the increase in the number of sex-violation cases in the recent past, particularly cases of molestation and rape in custody, to remove the notion, if it persists, that the testimony of a woman who is a victim of sexual violence must ordinarily be corroborated in material particulars, except in the rarest of rare cases. To insist on corroboration except in the rarest of rare cases is to equate a woman who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her story of woe would not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars in the case of an accomplice to a crime. Ours is a conservative society where it concerns sexual behaviour. Ours is not a permissive society as in some of the Western and European countries. Our standard of decency and morality in public life is not the same as in those countries. It is, however, evident that respect for womanhood, in our country is on active and cases of molestation and rape are steadily growing. Indian woman is now required to suffer indignities in different forms. From lewd remarks to eve-teasing, from molestation to rape. Our standard of decency and morality in public life is not the same as in those countries. It is, however, evident that respect for womanhood, in our country is on active and cases of molestation and rape are steadily growing. Indian woman is now required to suffer indignities in different forms. From lewd remarks to eve-teasing, from molestation to rape. Decency and morality in public life can be promoted and protected only if we deal strictly with those, who violate the social norms. The standard of proof to be required by the Court in such cases, must take into account the fact that such crimes are generally committed on the sly and very rarely direct evidence of a person other than the prosecutrix is available. Courts must also realise that ordinarily woman, more so a young girl, will not stake her reputation by levelling a false charge concerning her chastity. It is time to recall the observation of this Court made not so far back in Bhaiwaca Bhognibhai Hirjinbhai :- 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 a doing insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? To do so is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society. We must analyse the argument in support of the need for corroboration and subject it to relentless and remorseless crossexamination. And we must do so with a logical, and not an opinionated eye in the light of probabilities with our feet firmly planted on the soil of India and with our eyes focussed on the Indian horizon. We must not be swept off the feet by the approach, made in the Western world which has its own social milieu , its own permissive values, and its own code of life. Corroboration may, be considered essential to establish a sexual offence in the backdrop of the social ecology of the Western World. It is wholly unnecessary to import the said concept on a turn-Key basis and to transplant it on the Indian soil regardless of the altogether different atmosphere, attitudes, mores, responses of the Indian Society and its profile. Corroboration may, be considered essential to establish a sexual offence in the backdrop of the social ecology of the Western World. It is wholly unnecessary to import the said concept on a turn-Key basis and to transplant it on the Indian soil regardless of the altogether different atmosphere, attitudes, mores, responses of the Indian Society and its profile. The identities of the two worlds are different. The solution of problems therefore, cannot be identical. Further this Court said; Without the fear of making two wide a statement or of over-stating the case it can be said that rarely will a girl or a woman in India false allegations of sexual assault. The statement is generally true in the context of the urban as also rural society. It is also by the and large true in the context of the sophisticated, not so sophisticated, and unsophisticated society. Only very rarely can one conceivably come across an exception or to and that too possibly from amongst the urban elites. Because (1). 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. (2) She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down by the society including by her own family members, relatives, friends and neighbours. (3) She would have to brave the whole world. (4) She would have to brave the whole world. (4) she would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives, and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. (5) If she is unmarried she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with a suitable match from a respectable or an acceptable family. (6) It would almost inevitably and almost invariably result in mental torture and suffering to herself. (7) The fear of being taunted by others will always haunt her. (8) She would feel extremely embarrassed in relating the incident to others being over powered by a feeling of shame on account of the upbringing in a tradition bound society whereby and large sex is taboo. (9) The natural inclination would be to avoid giving publicity to the incident lest the family name and family honour is brought into controversy. (8) She would feel extremely embarrassed in relating the incident to others being over powered by a feeling of shame on account of the upbringing in a tradition bound society whereby and large sex is taboo. (9) The natural inclination would be to avoid giving publicity to the incident lest the family name and family honour is brought into controversy. (10) The parents of an unmarried girl as also the husband and members of the husband’s family of a married woman would also more often than not, want to avoid publicity on account of the fear of social stigma on the family name and family honour. (11) The fear of the victim herself being considered to the promiscuous or in some way responsible for the incident regardless of her innocence. (12) The reluctance to face interrogation by investigating agency, to face the Court to face the cross-examination, by Counsel for the culprit, and the risk of being disbelieved, acts as a deterrent.” 12. In the light of the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, by the Apex Court, it is to be determined, as to whether, the prosecution was able to prove its case, beyond a reasonable doubt. To determine this question, brief narration of the evidence, is required to be made. The prosecutrix, when appeared, in the witness box, as PW8, deposed that on the date of occurrence, her mother Sushil Verma and her brother Sonu had gone to work in a factory at about 8.00 a.m. and her father and grand parents had gone to enquire about the health of her maternal uncle Sai Dass. Only she and her two younger sisters were left, in the house. Sajjan Kumar, accused-appellant, who was a tenant, in a room, in their house, at about 10.00 a.m., called her and he ( Sajjan Kumar ) sent both her sisters to the Bazaar for purchasing nail polish. He ( Sajjan ) then made an enquiry, with regard to the whereabouts of the other members of the family. She gave him the information that they had gone outside. Thereafter, Sajjan Kumar, accused-appellant, pulled her by her arm, and after taking out some weapon resembling a knife threatened her, that if she raised alarm, he ( Sajjan Kumar ) would kill her. She was thrown, on the ground, by the accused, in his room. Her salwar was removed. She gave him the information that they had gone outside. Thereafter, Sajjan Kumar, accused-appellant, pulled her by her arm, and after taking out some weapon resembling a knife threatened her, that if she raised alarm, he ( Sajjan Kumar ) would kill her. She was thrown, on the ground, by the accused, in his room. Her salwar was removed. Thereafter the accused-appellant started committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly, and without her consent. She further stated that blood was oozing out of her private parts and she cried. Her father Raj Kumar and maternal uncle also in the name of Raj Kumar, came there. On seeing them, the accused ran away. She further stated that the blood fell on her clothes. She further stated that she became unconscious after narrating the whole incident, to her father, who took her to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, where she was medico-legally examined. She further stated that her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Corroboration to her statement was provided by Raj Kumar ( PW6) her father and Raj Kumar son of Gian Chand, PW7, maternal uncle. The ocular version, was duly corroborated through the medical evidence of Dr. J.K. Sidhu, who appeared, in the witness box as PW1. There was virtually no reason with the prosecutrix, her father and maternal uncle to depose falsely. The prosecutrix being a minor girl of 10 to 12 years, could not stake her honour, by levelling false allegations, against the accused-appellant as she very well knew that she would be looked down upon in the society; her family shall be held in very low esteem and the chances of her marriage will become very bleak, in case, such allegations of rape were found to be false. No doubt, the appellant-accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., stated that since the father of the prosecutrix wanted to get vacated the room, in which he ( accused ) was a tenant and he refused to do so, as a result thereof, this false allegation of rape was levelled against him. It cannot be imagined that the father will stake the honour of her minor daughter, aged about 10 to 12 years, by raising false allegations of rape, having been committed with her, by the accused-appellant, with a view to pressurize him, to vacate the room under his tenancy. It cannot be imagined that the father will stake the honour of her minor daughter, aged about 10 to 12 years, by raising false allegations of rape, having been committed with her, by the accused-appellant, with a view to pressurize him, to vacate the room under his tenancy. No evidence was led by the accused to support this plea, taken up by him, in statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. On re-appraisal of the evidence, produced by the prosecution, and referred to above, the same has been found to be cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy. The trial Court was right in relying upon the said evidence, to come to the conclusion that the rape was committed with the prosecutrix, aged 10 to 12 years, by the accusedappellant. The finding of the trial Court, in this regard, being inconsonance with the evidence, produced by the prosecution, does not deserve any interference. 13. It was next contended by the Counsel for the appellant-accused that the mother of the prosecutrix, which could be said to be the best witness, was not examined by the prosecution, for the reasons best known to it. He further contended that an adverse inference could be drawn, that had she been examined, she would not have supported the case of the prosecution. It is, no doubt, true that the mother of the prosecutrix was not examined, as a witness. According to the prosecutrix, when she raised shrieks, her father Raj Kumar and maternal uncle also known in the name of Raj Kumar came to the place of occurrence. The prosecutrix narrated the occurrence to her father. She did not state that her mother also came to the place of occurrence, when she raised shrieks. In these circumstances, the evidence of the mother of the prosecutrix, was not material. Even otherwise, it is for the Public Prosecutor to decide, as to how many witnesses, he wanted to examine, to prove the case of the prosecution. It is not necessary for him to multiply the number of witnesses, on the same point. Since the evidence of the mother of the prosecutrix, was not material, she was not examined by the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. It, therefore, could not be said that the prosecution with-held the best evidence, in its possession. It is not necessary for him to multiply the number of witnesses, on the same point. Since the evidence of the mother of the prosecutrix, was not material, she was not examined by the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. It, therefore, could not be said that the prosecution with-held the best evidence, in its possession. The evidence of the prosecutrix, her father Raj Kumar and maternal uncle Raj Kumar, is cogent, convincing and trustworthy. In this view of the matter, non-examination of the mother of the prosecutrix, did not cause any dent in the prosecution story. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant -accused, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 14. It was next contended by the Counsel for the appellant-accused that the Judicial Magistrate, concerned, who recorded the statement of the prosecutrix, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was not examined. It was not required of the prosecution to examine the Judicial Magistrate, concerned, who recorded the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix admitted that such a statement was recorded by the said Magistrate. The statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was only a previous statement of the prosecutrix, which could be used for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction. Since the prosecutrix, while appearing in the witness box as, PW8, deposed in terms of her statement, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., earlier recorded, due corroboration to her statement in the Court, through the said statement was furnished. In this view of the matter, non-examination of the Judicial Magistrate, concerned, who recorded the statement of the prosecutrix, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. , did not cause any dent in the prosecution case. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant -accused, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 15. It was next contended by the Counsel for the appellant that there was delay of about 10 hours, in lodging the first information report, which was utilized by the parents of the prosecutrix, for concoction of story false implication of the accused, and introduction of false witnesses. It is, no doubt, true that the occurrence took place at about 10.30 AM in the area of Preet Nagar, Ludhiana, at a distance of 8 KMs, from Police Station Sadar Ludhiana . The FIR was registered at 8.15 PM. The police proceedings on the statement of Raj Kumar, father of the prosecutrix, were completed at 7.55 PM. It is, no doubt, true that the occurrence took place at about 10.30 AM in the area of Preet Nagar, Ludhiana, at a distance of 8 KMs, from Police Station Sadar Ludhiana . The FIR was registered at 8.15 PM. The police proceedings on the statement of Raj Kumar, father of the prosecutrix, were completed at 7.55 PM. The first concern of the parents of the prosecutrix, was to take her (prosecutrix) to the hospital as her condition was very precarious, as the blood was oozing out of her private parts. She was admitted in Civil Hospital Ludhiana on 22.11.96, as a case of rape. Intimation Ex.PB with regard to the admission of the prosecutrix in the hospital, was sent by the doctor, to the police at 1.00 PM, on 22.11.96. On receipt of the information, SHO Police Station Jodhawal came to the hospital and moved an application Ex.PC before the SMO, on which he opined that the prosecutrix was unfit to make statement, as she was sedated. It was, thereafter, that the statement of the father of the prosecutrix, was recorded on the basis, whereof, the FIR was registered. The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C., was recorded on 25.11.1996, when she was declared fit, whereas she was discharged on 3.12.1996 as it evident from the evidence on record. It was, on account of this reason, that delay in lodging the first information report, occurred. The prosecutrix and her parents had no ill-will, grudge and enmity against the accused, to falsely implicate him, in the present case. No doubt, a plea was taken up by the accused, in his statement, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that with a view to pressurize him to vacate his tenanted premises, this false case was got registered against him , yet that plea has been found to be false. In the present case, the members of the family of the prosecutrix, must have thought a number of times, before lodging the report, as the question of honour of a minor girl, her future and prestige of her family, was involved. Under these circumstances, even if, some delay occurred, in lodging the report, that hardly mattered, as the same stood explained, from the evidence referred to above. Under these circumstances, even if, some delay occurred, in lodging the report, that hardly mattered, as the same stood explained, from the evidence referred to above. Not only this, in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh 1996 (1) RCR 533 (SC) the parents of the victim of rape, reported the matter, in the first instance, to the village Panchayat, and when the Panchayat failed to provide any relief, the FIR was lodged thereafter. In these circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that the delay stood properly explained. It was further held that in sexual offences, the delay in lodging the FiR, could be due to a variety of reasons, particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix, or family members to approach the police, and lodge complaint, about the incident, which concerns the reputation and honour of the family and victim. In State of Punjab v. Ramadev Singh, 2004(1) Crimes 149 (SC), rape was committed with a girl of 14 years. There was delay of 17 days, in lodging the report. The father of the prosecutrix, was seriously ill and the family members did not want to create tension in his mind and waited for his recovery. In these circumstances, such explanation was accepted as correct, and the Apex Court held that the delay stood explained. Since the delay stood explained and the evidence of the prosecution, has been found to be cogent, convincing and trustworthy, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant -accused, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 16. It was next contended by the Counsel for the appellant that in Ex.PW1/A, the report submitted by Dr. J.K. Sidhu, PW1, the age of the prosecutrix, was mentioned as 10 years. He further contended that according to the ossification test, the age of the prosecutrix was 10 to 12 years with a variation of three years, on either side. He further contended that the father of the prosecutrix, when appeared in the witness box as, PW6, deposed that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was got recorded, in the office of the Municipal Corporation, but no certificate of her date of birth was produced. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, it could be said that the age of the prosecutrix was more than 16 years at the time of the alleged occurrence and not 10 to 12 years. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, it could be said that the age of the prosecutrix was more than 16 years at the time of the alleged occurrence and not 10 to 12 years. The ocular evidence and the medical evidence, with regard to the age of the prosecutrix is almost consistent. The prosecutrix when appeared in the witness box as PW8, gave her age 13 years as on 9.8.99. According to the ossification test, her age was 10 to 12 years, with a variation of three years, on either side. From whatever angle, it may be seen the age of the prosecutrix, at the time of occurrence, was below 16 years. She was thus minor, at the time of occurrence. There is no evidence, on the record, that she was above 16 years of age, at the time of occurrence. When the evidence produced on the record, clearly proved that the age of the prosecutrix, at the time of occurrence was below 16 years, non-production of her birth certificate, did not cast any doubt on the prosecution story. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant -accused, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 17. It was next contended by the Counsel for the appellant, that the story set up by Raj Kumar, father of the prosecutrix that on hearing shrieks of the prosecutrix, he along with another Raj Kumar, maternal uncle went up-stairs and saw the accused committing rape with the prosecutrix, was concocted, as the prosecutrix did not support this version of PW6 Raj Kumar and PW7 Raj Kumar son of Gian Chand. During the course of cross examination, the prosecutrix stated that she raised alarm, but none came to help her, because the accused had started the deck, with a loud voice. If for the sake of arguments, though not admitting, it is taken that the accused had started the deck with a loud voice, as a result whereof, shrieks of the prosecutrix, could not attract anybody to the place of occurrence, that did not mean that the case of the prosecutrix, was not proved. The statement of the prosecutrix clinches the matter. When she appeared, in the witness box, as PW8, she stated that the accused committed sexual intercourse, with her without her consent and against her will. The statement of the prosecutrix clinches the matter. When she appeared, in the witness box, as PW8, she stated that the accused committed sexual intercourse, with her without her consent and against her will. Even the blood was found oozing out of her private parts. This fact was duly corroborated by the medical evidence. Her hymen was torn. The evidence of the prosecutrix duly corroborated by the medical evidence, has been found to be cogent, convincing, reliable and trust-worthy. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, does not carry weight, and the same stands rejected. 18. It was next contended by the Counsel for the appellant, that according to PW7, Raj Kumar son of Gian Chand, he reported the matter to the police of Police Post Basti Jodhewal at 11.00 AM on 22.11.1996, and after recording his statement, the SHO came with him to Civil Hospital Ludhiana. He further contended that the statement of Raj Kumar (PW7) recorded first, in point of time, by the police, did not see the light of the day. He further contended that it was intentionally with held , as the same did not inculpate the accused. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The prosecutrix, while appearing in the witness box as, PW8, and even in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Ex.DC, clearly identified the accused as the person, who committed rape with her. She was thoroughly cross examined, but she stood the test of touch-stone of all probabilities, during cross-examination. Dalip Kumar, ASI, however, denied that Raj Kumar, PW7, informed him about the incident at 11.00 AM on 22.11.1996. There is nothing in the statement of Dalip Kumar, ASI, that he recorded the statement of Raj Kumar at 11.00 AM on 22.11.1996. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant -accused, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 19. It was next contended by the Counsel for the appellant, that the prosecutrix when appeared in the witness box as, PW8, during the course of cross examination, stated that she was admitted in the hospital on 3.12.1996 and not earlier to that date. 19. It was next contended by the Counsel for the appellant, that the prosecutrix when appeared in the witness box as, PW8, during the course of cross examination, stated that she was admitted in the hospital on 3.12.1996 and not earlier to that date. He further contended that since as per the statement of the prosecutrix,she was got admitted in the hospital on 3.12.1996, the question of her medical examination on 22.11.1996, did not at all arise. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. It appears that the prosecutrix, during the stress of cross-examination, gave the date of her admission in the hospital as 3.12.1996, which, in fact, was the date of her discharge, from the hospital, as is evident from the medical evidence. On the other hand, Dr. U.S. Sooch, EMO, PW2, who admitted the prosecutrix, in the hospital, in clear cut terms stated that she was admitted in the hospital on 22.11.1996, as the alleged case of rape. Dr. J.K. Sidhu, who medico-legally examined the prosecutrix on 22.11.1996, appeared in the witness box as, PW1, and gave her report Ex.PW1/A, in this regard. Even Raj Kumar, PW6, father of the prosecutrix, and Raj Kumar, PW7, maternal uncle, in clear cut terms stated that the prosecutrix was got admitted in the hospital on 22.11.1996. There is, thus, cogent independent evidence regarding the date of admission of the prosecutrix, in the hospital, on 22.11.1996. As such, the statement of the prosecutrix, during the course of cross-examination, that she was admitted, in the hospital, on 3.12.1996, was hardly of any consequence. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant -accused, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 20. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 21. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same do not warrant any interference, and are liable to be upheld. 21. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 17.11.1999, are upheld. The same do not warrant any interference, and are liable to be upheld. 21. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 17.11.1999, are upheld. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, shall take all necessary steps, in accordance with the provisions of law, to comply the order with due promptitude. ———————