JUDGMENT R.C. Mishra, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 7-9-1994 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S.T. No. 166/1993, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to suffer SI for 15 days. 2. The prosecution story, in short, may be narrated as under: (i) The appellant is a native of Village Teekar Jakira Tola, Govindgarh Distt. Rewa. At the relevant point of time, the prosecutrix (P.W. 4), a 15-year-old daughter of Shyamwati (P.W. 6) was also residing in the same village. (ii) On 15-7-1993, the prosecutrix along with Sunila (P.W. 5) and Butan had gone to nearby Rani Talab for grazing buffaloes. At about 12 noon, when they were playing game with gottis (pebbles) and one Jagvanshi (P.W. 10) was grazing his goats, the appellant came there; caught hold of the prosecutrix's hand and started dragging her towards the ravine. As she and her companions raised alarms, the appellant threatened to stab them. The appellant then took the prosecutrix to a nearby place situated inside bushes on the bank of the ravine; fell her down and after removing her clothes, subjected her to sexual intercourse. She started bleeding from the vagina. Thereafter, he threatened her to kill in case she divulged to any person what had happened. (iii) While returning home, the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother Shyamwati (P.W. 6) who had met in the transit. On the following day only, Shyamwati took her to the police station where FIR (Exh. P-1) leading to registration of a case under Section 376 of the IPC was lodged by the prosecutrix. (iv) The prosecutrix was sent to the hospital for medical examination. Dr. Smt. Surekha Puniwala (P.W. 11), while expressing her inability to give any definite finding as to commission of rape, prepared two slides from the vaginal smear of the prosecutrix and preserved it for chemical examination. She also advised radiological examination for ascertaining the age of the prosecutrix. On the basis of ossification test, Dr. N.S. Parte (P.W. 12) determined the age of the prosecutrix as above 16 but below 18 years. (v) During investigation, underwear and torn petticoat produced by the prosecutrix were seized; the appellant was apprehended on 17-7-1993 and was also subjected to medical examination. Dr. On the basis of ossification test, Dr. N.S. Parte (P.W. 12) determined the age of the prosecutrix as above 16 but below 18 years. (v) During investigation, underwear and torn petticoat produced by the prosecutrix were seized; the appellant was apprehended on 17-7-1993 and was also subjected to medical examination. Dr. Narendra Nath Mishra (P.W. 8) could not prepare seminal slides in view of the appellant's inability to ejaculate. However, he preserved the underwear worn by the appellant. According to the medical expert, it was not possible to give a definite opinion on the point as to whether appellant had committed intercourse in the immediate past. (vi) The seized clothes and the slides were forwarded to FSL, Sagar for forensic examination. However, the corresponding report was not placed on record. After due investigation, charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC was submitted in the Court of JMFC, Rewa, who committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. 3. On being charged with the offence of rape, the appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. In the examination, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), the appellant further asserted that he has been falsely implicated due to animosity in view of the following facts: (i) upon being objected to her act of uprooting Akdi (a sort of grass) from his field, the prosecutrix used to quarrel with him. (ii) At an earlier occasion, he had taken Shyamwati's cattle, trespassing on his 'Hardua' field, to the pound. 4. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses including the prosecutrix, her cousin Sunita, mother Shyamwati, Jagwanshi and the medical experts. No evidence was led in defence. Upon a critical appraisal of the entire evidence on record, learned Trial Judge, for the reasons assigned in the impugned judgment, concluded that the charge of rape was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. He, accordingly, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as indicated hereinabove. 5. Legality and propriety of the conviction under challenge have been assailed on the following grounds: (i) There was no cogent evidence to prove that age of the prosecutrix was less than 16 years. (ii) Testimony of the prosecutrix suffered from serious infirmities with reference to the recital of the FIR (Exh. P-1) and contents of police statement (Exh. D-2). 5. Legality and propriety of the conviction under challenge have been assailed on the following grounds: (i) There was no cogent evidence to prove that age of the prosecutrix was less than 16 years. (ii) Testimony of the prosecutrix suffered from serious infirmities with reference to the recital of the FIR (Exh. P-1) and contents of police statement (Exh. D-2). (iii) Independent eye-witness Jagwanshi (P.W. 10) did not support the prosecution version. (iv) The medical evidence was non-committal and inconclusive. (v) Probability of the defence of false implication was established from the evidence on record. In response, learned Panel Lawyer, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence, has contended that the conviction was fully justified. 6. In order to appreciate the merits of the rival contentions in the right perspective, it is necessary to first advert to the medical evidence and other evidence available on record as to age of the prosecutrix. 7. Being an illiterate mother, Shyamwati (P.W. 6) was not able to state the exact date of the prosecutrix's birth. According to her, at the time of incident, the prosecutrix was of only 12 years of age. She further deposed that marriage of the prosecutrix had already been solemnized but her Gauna (bride's going to husband's house) ceremony was yet to be performed. Contents of the report (Exh. P-12) and the X-ray plates annexed thereto clearly indicated that Dr. N.S. Parte (P.W. 12) had determined age of the prosecutrix as between 16 and 18 years on the basis of findings of the radiological examination of joints comprising radius, ulna & femur bones and crest of ilium. His admission that margin of error in determination of radiological age can be 3 years on both sides was apparently misconceived simply because the ossification test was not confined to X-ray examination of a single bone only See: Ram Deo Chauhan v. State of Assam AIR 2001 SC 2231 . Accordingly, the margin of error could be 6 months. This apart, as explained by the Apex Court in State of H.P. v. Mange Ram AIR 2000 SC 2798 , the radiological age, being probable, has to be verified in the face of age-related other evidence on record. Viewing from this angle, the following physical features described by Dr. Accordingly, the margin of error could be 6 months. This apart, as explained by the Apex Court in State of H.P. v. Mange Ram AIR 2000 SC 2798 , the radiological age, being probable, has to be verified in the face of age-related other evidence on record. Viewing from this angle, the following physical features described by Dr. Surekha Puniwala (P.W. 11) were sufficient to fortify her assessment that the prosecutrix was about 15 years of age-- (a) Menarche not yet attained. (b) Breasts - developing. (c)Teeth 7 + 7 / 7 + 7 = 28 (d) Axillary hair not present. (e) Pubic hair not present. (f) Vagina admitted only one finger. In the light of these findings of the anthropological and dental examinations, learned Trial Judge did not commit any illegality in holding that age of the prosecutrix was not more than 15 years. 8. Adverting to the testimony of the prosecutrix, it may be observed that she had reiterated the allegations as recorded in the HR (Exh. P-1) by Head Constable Bhawani Shankar (P.W. 1) at her instance only that she was subjected to sexual assault by the appellant only. She vividly described as to how she was taken to the spot from the place where along with her cousins namely Sunita and Butan, she was playing while grazing buffaloes. Sunita (P.W. 5) corroborated the fact that it was she who had informed Shyamwati, the mother of the prosecutrix about the appellant's act of taking her into the jungle. Shyamwati (P.W. 6) also supported the corresponding version by deposing that while proceeding towards the spot, her daughter, viz., the prosecutrix weeping in pain and narrated the incident to her. As rightly pointed by learned Trial Judge, the defence was not able to elicit any material contradiction in the evidence of these witnesses. 9. Dr. Surekha Puniwala (P.W. 11) who had the occasion to examine the prosecutrix nearly 30 hours after the occurrence in question, corroborated the factum of recent penetration into vagina by pointing out that-- (i) Hymen was torn, tear was fresh and fresh bleeding was also present. (ii) There was a laceration of 1 cm x -2 cm on the right side of vagina. (iii) Vagina admitted one finger with difficulty. In the cross-examination, the lady doctor completely ruled out the possibility that it was a case of menstrual bleeding. (ii) There was a laceration of 1 cm x -2 cm on the right side of vagina. (iii) Vagina admitted one finger with difficulty. In the cross-examination, the lady doctor completely ruled out the possibility that it was a case of menstrual bleeding. Although, she did not give a definite opinion regarding rape yet she clearly admitted that injuries could be caused due to penetration of male organ into the vagina. 10. In the opinion of Dr. Narendra Nath Mishra (P.W. 8), the appellant though not able to ejaculate due to psychological reasons, was potent and capable of performing sexual intercourse. This opinion was neither subjected to serious challenge nor was sought to be rebutted by leading any expert evidence on the point. 11. Non-production of FSL report did not assume any significance as even absence of spermatozoa could not cast a doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version Prithi Chand v. State of H.P. (1989) 1 SCC 432 referred to. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellant, while placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Sukhman v. Stale of M.P. 2002 (I) MPWN 37 , has contended that in view of the possibility not ruled out by the prosecution evidence that the prosecutrix was above 16 years of age, the conviction for the offence of rape was not sustainable in law. The contention is apparently misconceived because firstly on consideration of the entire evidence on record, age of the prosecutrix was determined as not more than 15 years and secondly even if it is assumed that the prosecutrix was above 16 years, submission of body under fear of terror or duress would not amount to consent [See: Mange Ram's case (supra)] and her evidence that she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse should normally be accepted unless there is material leading to inference of her consent State of Rajasthan v. N.K. (2000) 5 SCC 30 relied on. 13. It is next urged on behalf of the appellant that absence of injuries on back completely belied the statement of the prosecutrix that the appellant had caused her to fall down and dragged her at the time when she was lying flat on her back. To buttress the argument, reference has been made to decision of this Court in Pappu v. State of M.P. 2005 (II) MPWN 132 . To buttress the argument, reference has been made to decision of this Court in Pappu v. State of M.P. 2005 (II) MPWN 132 . However, as observed by the Supreme Court in Narayanamma v. State of Kamataka (1994) 5 SCC 728 , the fact that no injury was found on the back of the prosecutrix allegedly ravished on a stony or rough surface is of no consequence when her evidence is otherwise corroborated on material particulars. 14. The Supreme Court decision in Devinder Singh v. State of H.P. AIR 2003 SC 3365 , is also of no avail to the appellant. It was a case wherein testimony of the prosecutrix, a married lady, living separately from her husband, was found unworthy of credence inter alia for (a) delay of 6 days in lodging the FIR and (b) absence of injury on any part of the body or tenderness in genital areas despite the allegation as to gang rape by as many as 5 persons. However, the case on hand concerns a prosecutrix, whose secondary sex characters were not developed and who, despite being married, had no earlier experience of sexual intercourse. As reflected in the FIR (Exh. P-1), the police station is situated at a distance of 15 kms. from the spot. It is true that police was informed about the incident nearly 25 hours thereafter but delay was understandable as victim of such a crime and her relatives were obviously required to consider all the aspects of the matter that also involved question of morality and chastity of a girl, whose Gauna was yet to be performed [State of Rajasthan v. Narayan (1992) 3 SCC 615 relied on]. Accordingly, there was sufficient material on record to treat delay as inconsequential. 15. Amongst the other decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the one in Chain Singh v. State of M.P. 2002 (II) MPWN 71 , relates to a case where even the penetration, the main ingredient of the offence of rape was not established whereas by the other rendered in State of M.P. v. Hariram 2007 (II) MPWN 116 , leave to appeal against order of acquittal in a case of rape on a 30-year-old prosecutrix whose testimony was not only found to be full of contradictions but also could not draw support from the medical and other evidence on record was not granted. Thus, these cases were also distinguishable on facts. 16. Non-corroborative evidence of Jagvanshi (P.W. 10) did not assume significance particularly in the light of the well settled position of law that no corroboration is required to act upon the prosecutrix's testimony. Moreover, he categorically admitted that he had met the appellant's father immediately before giving statement on oath. This apart, the fact that in the jungle, the prosecutrix was in the company of her cousins also drew support from his evidence. 17. The defence was apparently improbable as no mother would stoop so low to bring forth a false charge of rape on her daughter, who was yet to her husband's house, in view of animosity emanating either from quarrel as to uprooting of grass or seizure of cattle on the ground of trespass into his field. On the contrary, the following observations made by the Apex Court in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC 54 , in respect of the mother of prosecutrix in that case apply with full force to Shyamwati (P.W. 6) also-- The next question is whether, the mother can be regarded as an "independent" witness. So far as this case is concerned, I have no doubt on that score. It may be that all mothers may not be sufficient independent to fulfill the requirements of the corroboration rule but there is no legal bar to exclude them from its operation merely on the ground of their relationship. Independent merely means independent of source, which are likely to be tainted. In the absence of enmity against the accused there is no reason why she would implicate him falsely. It is true the accused suggested that they were on bad terms but that has not been believed by anyone. 18. It is well-settled that a conviction can be safely recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided that her evidence does no t suffer from any basic infirmity and "probabilities factor" does not render it unworthy of credence (See: Bharwada Bhoqinbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujrat AIR 1983 SC 753 ). Accordingly, discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses cannot be given undue importance. 19. For these reasons, none of the contentions raised against legality and propriety of the conviction has any merit or substance. Accordingly, discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses cannot be given undue importance. 19. For these reasons, none of the contentions raised against legality and propriety of the conviction has any merit or substance. It, therefore, deserves to be affirmed as well-merited. 20. Coming to the question of sentence, learned Counsel, while making reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana 2006 (II) MPWN 137 , has submitted that its term deserves to be reduced to 2 years, the period already undergone by him, in the facts and circumstances of the case including that at the relevant point of time, the appellant, being a resident of rural area, was only 18 years of age. However in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Balu (2005) 1 SCC 108 , these facts cannot be recognized as adequate or special reasons contemplated under proviso to Section 376(1) of the IPC. Further, as explained by a three Judge Bench in State of M.P. v. Bala (2005) 8 SCC 1 : Though the award of maximum punishment may depend on circumstances of the case, award of the minimum punishment, generally, is imperative. ... ... ... The mere existence of adiscretion by itself does not justify its exercise. The long pendency of the criminal trial or the offer of the rapist to marry the victim are not relevant reasons. Nor is the age of the offender by itself an adequate reasons. (Emphasis supplied) 21. Considering the social impact of the crime and other relevant aspects of the sentencing policy, there is no extenuating or mitigating circumstance justifying imposition of less than the minimum custodial sentence prescribed for the offence. 22. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed and the impugned conviction and consequent sentences are hereby affirmed. 23. Appellant is on bail. He is directed to surrender to his bail bonds before the Trial Court on or before 29-10-2009 for being committed to the custody for undergoing remaining part of the sentence.