JUDGMENT MOOL CHAND GARG, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant who has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code in case FIR No. 175/89 at P.S. Hazarat Nizamudin and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- or in default of payment of fine to suffer further S.I. for 5 months. Along with the appeal the appellant also moved an application for suspension of sentence which was allowed vide order dated 05.10.1999. However, the appellant failed to appear when the case was listed for hearing of the arguments and thereafter bailable warrants and subsequently non-bailable warrants were also issued against the appellant. 2. Vide order dated 21.09.1997 due to non-apperance of the appellant, it was ordered that even if the appellant does not want any arguments to be advanced, the appeal shall be disposed of on merits on the basis of the trial Court records and, thus, Sh. D.K.Mathur, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curaie. Consequently, arguments were heard on 22.01.2009. 3. The learned Amicus Curie appearing for the appellant submitted that the conviction against the appellant was liable to be set aside for the, following reasons: i) that there was discrepancy in the age of prosecutrix ii) PW4 did not supported the case of the prosecution at all and iii) that the father of the prosecutrix has also not supported her. iv) That the medical report goes to show that there was no injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix. 4. It was also submitted that the other co-accused persons, namely Mange Ram, Ramwati who were also tried with the appellant have already been acquitted. It is also submitted that the punishment imposed on the appellant is very harsh. 5. The Learned APP has supported the judgment by submitting that the defence of the accused was never put to the prosecutrix who has fully supported her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C which makes out a case under Section 376 of IPC against Karan Singh. It is also submitted that the punishment imposed on the appellant is very harsh. 5. The Learned APP has supported the judgment by submitting that the defence of the accused was never put to the prosecutrix who has fully supported her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C which makes out a case under Section 376 of IPC against Karan Singh. As per the record the age of the prosecutrix was 13 years as per the school certificate at the time of incident and as per the ossification test she was of 15 and a half years and, therefore, it was not a case where the consent of the prosecutrix could be presumed in respect of the act of intercourse committed on her person by the appellant Karan Singh. It is also submitted that finding of no injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix in the medical examination or there being no corroboration to her statement are of no consequence. Conviction in such cases can always be inflicted on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. 6. I have gone through the records of this case with the help of Amicus Curaie and the Learned APP for the State. 7. Briefly stating, the appellant and two others were sent up for trial before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi for commission of offence punishable under Section 363/366/376 IPC after completion of investigation of complaint made by Udaivir Singh father of prosecutrix dated 26.04.1989 to Duty Officer, P.S. Hazarat Nizamuddin informing the kidnapping of his daughter Babita (prosecutrix) when she had gone to her school at Jungpura from there she has been kidnapped by a boy, namely, Pyare. It was alleged that Babita had been kidnapped by Pyare, his father Karan Singh, his mother Ramwati and a request was made to take legal action against the aforesaid accused persons. It is on that basis a case was registered against the accused persons under Section 363/366 IPC and the investigation was marked to ASI Nand Ballabh. During the course of investigation Babita (hereinafter referred to as prosecutrix) was recovered from the custody of Karan Singh, Ramwati and Mange Ram. The investigating officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and arrested the accused persons. During the course of investigation Babita (hereinafter referred to as prosecutrix) was recovered from the custody of Karan Singh, Ramwati and Mange Ram. The investigating officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and arrested the accused persons. The statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the M.M. and on that basis charge under Section 376 IPC was also added in the FIR. Prosecutrix was also got medically examined and the exhibits seized during investigation were sent to CFSL. A challan was filed against all the three accused persons after completing the investigation. 8. The Addl. Sessions Judge framed charges against all the accused persons under Section 363/366/376 IPC to which the appellant and the other co-accused persons pleaded no guilty, and therefore, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses in all to prove their case. The material witnesses examined by the prosecution includes Smt. Ramla Rohtagi who proved the school certificate of the prosecutrix exhibit PW1/A showed her date of birth as 02.04.1976. Taking into consideration the date of incident and the aforesaid date of birth of the prosecutrix, the age of the prosecutrix was about 13 years and few days, PW11 Dr. Arun Kumar has proved the bone age of the prosecutrix on the basis of ossification test, to be somewhere in between 14.5 and 15.8 years. The MLC of the prosecutrix was proved by Dr. Meeta Sarkar as exhibit PW1/A. The next important witness is PW5 Dr. M.S. Sagar who proved MLC of the accused Karan Singh which is exhibit PW5/A and goes to show that accused Karan Singh was capable of performing sexual intercourse. 9. Prosecutrix appeared as PW6 and deposed in line with her statement made before the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The allegation made by her against Karan Singh, in respect of the charges under Section 376 IPC are: That on 22.4.1989, she along with her brother Sanjay had gone to her school at Jungpura to enquire as to whose signatures on her school leaving certificate would hold good for her admission in U.P. on the way to her school, she left her brother Sanjay at her younger sister’s school to enable him to inquire about the certificate and when she reached Bhogal bus stand at about 11 AM. She also stated that: Accused Mange Ram took her to village Gopalpur, Sikenderabad and told his family members that prosecutrix was niece of accused Karan Singh and that accused Karan Singh had gone to see a boy for the prosecutrix and he would be back in 2-3 days time. On 27.4.1989 accused Karan Singh came to the house of accused Mange Ram and the prosecutrix asked him to leave her at her house and on 28.4.1989 accused Karan Singh brought the prosecurtix to Gazipur in Delhi and there he spent the night with the prosecutrix and had sex with her against her consent. On 29.4.1989, Karan Singh brought her to ISBT, where accused Ramwati had also come and they were waiting at the Bus stop for somebody. In the meanwhile, police along with her father came there and she was recovered. She was got medically examined and her salwar Ex.P1 Kameez Ex.P2 (which she was wearing at that time) were taken into possession by the police. On 30th April, or 1st May, 1989. Her statement Ex. PW1/A under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by a Magistrate. 10. PW7 who is the duty officer proved the written complaint made by the father of the prosecutrix exhibit PW7/A on which basis the FIR exhibit PW7/B was registered under Section 363/366 IPC. 11. Perusal of the trial Court record goes to show that both in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the prosecutrix had very categorically stated that she was raped by appellant Karan Singh forceably. Her statement recorded under Section 164 as Ex.PW4/A has been proved by PW14 Shri. J.K.Pali the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate by appearing as a witness. 12. After recording the evidence of the prosecution, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C of the accused persons were also recorded who denied the charges. Some defence witnesses were also examined to prove that the prosecutrix was happy to stay at Sikenderabad and was not ready to come back. 12. After recording the evidence of the prosecution, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C of the accused persons were also recorded who denied the charges. Some defence witnesses were also examined to prove that the prosecutrix was happy to stay at Sikenderabad and was not ready to come back. On the basis of the evidence which came on record, the Trial Court had not agreed with the defence of Alibi which appellant Karan Singh wanted to establish on the basis of statement made by DW3 & DW4, that on the date of incident i.e. 23.04.1989 (Sunday) and till 29.04.1989 he was on duty because there was no clinching evidence available to prove the plea of Alibi taken by the accused Karan Singh. It was also observed that the plea of Alibi was an after-thought because it had not been suggested to the prosecutrix. As regards the age of the prosecutrix the Sessions Judge held that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age and, therefore, could not have consented to be subjected herself to rape. Evaluating the testimony of the prosecutrix it has been observed that the evidence of the prosecutrix is consistently reliable regarding accused Karan Singh in raping her. 13. In this regard, I have also scrutinized the evidence available on record and I fully agree with the opinion formed by the Sessions Judge that she was subjected to rape. In this regard, the Sessions Judge further observed that the testimony of the prosecutrix was wholly reliable and minor discrepancies are of no consequence & thus convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC. In her deposition the prosecutrix has stated; “that she was kidnapped while returning from school. As her notice statement was recorded in the year 1989 and her evidence in the year 1992 due to time gap and considering her age, such like discrepancies are likely to be there and in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not fatal to prosecution case. Similarly, discrepancy regarding taking prosecutrix from bus stand or from Railway Station is not of any consequence because she is consistent that she was taken in a bus. Similarly, discrepancy regarding taking prosecutrix from bus stand or from Railway Station is not of any consequence because she is consistent that she was taken in a bus. I do not agree with learned defence counsel that prosecutrix ought to be disbelieved because she has stated that she was kept in police station for two nights or because she stated that her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded two days after she was recovered and due to time-gap referred above, such variations are bound to arise, but these variations do not shake the creditability of prosecutrix as it does not relate to the incident of rape. It has not been suggested to the prosecutrix that she was tutored nor it is evident from the evidence of the prosecutrix. In my considered opinion, the prosecutrix has deposed in most natural, straight forward and consistent manner.” 14. Now, I may also refer to a judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajoo and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. 2008(15) SCALE 375 , where it has been held: 8. The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge leveled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self-inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another persons lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable. 15. In another case of S. Ramakrishna Vs. The State 2008(11) JT 635 , the Apex Court while delivering this judgment also observed: 10. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable. 15. In another case of S. Ramakrishna Vs. The State 2008(11) JT 635 , the Apex Court while delivering this judgment also observed: 10. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. 11. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "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 is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence…... 16. 12. In the case of Om Prakash Vs. State of U.P. AIR 2006 SC 2214 , some relevant observations are reproduced here under: 13. A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put 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 is 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 conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge leveled 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 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short Evidence Act) similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some 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. If for some 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 required 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 own to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case discloses 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. This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra vs Kewalchand Jain AIR 1990 SC 658 . 17. Having gone through the records of this case and the law on the subject, I have no hesitation but to hold that in the present case the testimony of the prosecutrix alone was sufficient to bring home the guilt & to prove the charges of rape against the appellant. 18. As regards the submissions made by Learned Amicus Curaie that being no injuries were found on her private parts, reference can be made to the judgment delivered in the case of B.C.Deva Vs. State of Karnataka 2007 12 SCC 122 , where it has been held that merely because no injury was found on the private parts of the prosecutrix would not negate her testimony about the rape committed on her. “18. The plea that no marks of injuries were found either on the person of the accused or the person of the prosecutrix, does not lead to any inference that the accused has not committed forcible sexual intercourse on the prosecutrix. Though the report of the gynaecologist pertaining to the medical examination of the prosecutrix does not disclose any evidence of sexual intercourse, yet even in the absence of any corroboration of medical evidence, the oral testimony of the prosecutrix, which is found to be cogent, reliable, convincing and trustworthy has to be accepted.” 19. Thus, I uphold the judgment delivered by Sessions Judge in appeal. I also do not find any infirmity in the sentence awarded to him. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Thus, I uphold the judgment delivered by Sessions Judge in appeal. I also do not find any infirmity in the sentence awarded to him. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 20. Since the appellant is not appearing in this Court, a copy of the order be sent to the trial Court who would take necessary steps for appearance of the appellant and would send him to the Central Jail, Tihar, so that the appellant may undergo the remaining part of his sentence. The surety bond of the appellant is forfeited. The trial Court will also take steps to recover the amount of surety by issuing appropriate notice to the surety of the appellant. A copy of this order be also sent to the Jail Superintendent for his information so that he can ensure that if the appellant is involved in some other case and is in custody, he is not released before completing the remaining part of his sentence after giving benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. Trial Court Record shall be sent forthwith.