Hon'ble TOTLA, J.—This appeal challenges conviction of appellant for the offence under Ss. 376(2)(f), 363 and 323 IPC vide judgment dated 12.5.04 and sentence awarded as under:- (i) For offence under Section 376(f)- 10 years RI with fine Rs. 5000/-, in default one year RI. (ii) For offence under Section 363 IPC - 7 years RI with fine Rs. 2000/-, in default six months RI. (iii) For offence under Section 323 IPC -one month RI. All the substantive sentence to run concurrently. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Brief events leading to appellant's prosecution are that on 12.11.02 Lakha Ram PW. 5 lodged a written report Ex. P/8 at P.S. informing that he was sitting at Ganesh chowk in village when PW.8 shoutingly weeping about her daughter R went behind middle school, so he and Roopa Ram PW/13 also went after her and observed that appellant Shrawan Kumar forcibly holding R was committing act of intercourse- mother G PW/8 was trying to save her and only on their going near appellant, he ran away and they have brought the girl aged 4 years who is still. Also stated in FIR that the girl was going to relieve herself (latrine) and appellant forcibly took her from behind school to verandah and then barbarously did so. SHO PW/21 making entry in Roznamcha registered FIR Ex. P/19 for the offence of Section 376 IPC directing for her medical examination inspecting place of occurrence i.e. verandah of house at agricultural field prepared memo Ex. P/5 where several places on nivar of cot and cement floor was blood stains, such pieces of nivar and piece of stained cement and plain floor collected and sealed making memo Ex. P/6 and Ex. P.7 making packets as A, B and C. Investigating officer examining witnesses obtained school certificate Ex. P/20. 4. Appellant arrested on same day vide memo Ex. P/4 and his pant and shirt having some blood like stains and also her underwear taken and sealed vide memos Ex. P/2 and Ex. P/1- packets respectively marked as C, D & E. Clothes of victim, shirt and skirt having blood stains presented by her mother on 2.12.02 seized and sealed packet marked F. The girl examined by female Medical Officer PW/6 and report prepared is Ex. P/12 - for age determination X-ray taken before Radiologist who vide report Ex. P/2 and Ex. P/1- packets respectively marked as C, D & E. Clothes of victim, shirt and skirt having blood stains presented by her mother on 2.12.02 seized and sealed packet marked F. The girl examined by female Medical Officer PW/6 and report prepared is Ex. P/12 - for age determination X-ray taken before Radiologist who vide report Ex. P/19 opined of she being minor. Dr. PW/12 examining appellant on 13.11.02 prepared report Ex. P/10. 5. Packet of different articles seized were safely kept and delivered with forwarding letter Ex.P/12 of office of Superintendent of Police at FSL obtaining receipt Ex. P/13. Packets of elements of swab collected and sealed. Recording statements of witnesses and other usual investigations, charge-sheet submitted for the offence of Section 376 IPC. 6. Appellant charged for the offence of Section 376(2), 363 and 323 IPC that he at about 4 PM (Afternoon) of 12.11.02, by use of force and without consent of her guardian taking away 5 years girl to own field forcefully committed sexual intercourse causing injuries to her- claimed trial. 7. On behalf of prosecution, examined are 22 witnesses. PW/7 is the victim girl who was forcibly taken away while going with her cousin sister S PW.16 PW. 8 is mother of victim. PW.9 mother S depose about on being informed by S and others going to field and finding as above and their evidence is supported by their relative PW/13. PW/5 who lodged FIR and R PW/17 deposing of they following with her found accused doing the act with R. PW/10, PW/3 and PW/2 also state about incident. PW/1, PW/4 and PW/11 are independent witnesses of seizure of above articles. PW/21 SHO registering case investigated and some investigation is by ASI PW/22, PW/14, PW/15, PW/18, PW/20 pertains to delivering packets of articles safely at laboratory. Medical Officer doctors PW/10, PW/12 and PW/19 prove medical reports. 8. Appellant explains that witnesses are of one and same family and because of enmity between his and complainant's families, he is falsely implicated and all witnesses telling lie. 9. Learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as above. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that (i) appellant at the time of alleged incident and thereafter also was of unsound mind (ii) admittedly parties are on enemical terms (iii) it is not believable that act continued till PW/5, PW/8 or any arrived there. 9. Learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as above. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that (i) appellant at the time of alleged incident and thereafter also was of unsound mind (ii) admittedly parties are on enemical terms (iii) it is not believable that act continued till PW/5, PW/8 or any arrived there. Learned counsel argued that per prosecution, some witness did see commission of such act by the appellant and those persons did go after appellant only after they were informed- that being so much was time gap observing alleged incident not possible and because so is deposed, it renders the entire story very doubtful. Argued that if it was so, then it further proves insanity of appellant. Learned counsel submitted that Medical Officer who examined appellant soon after arrest do say and subsequent medical reports describes of his unsoundness. In support of contention learned counsel cited 2004(1) CJ (Raj.) Cr. 408 Vidhya Devi vs. State of Rajasthan. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that arguments regarding unsoundness of mind is baseless and from the evidence substantially corroborated by medical evidence proved is that appellant did commit rape. 12. Considering rival arguments, perused record and also judgment assailed. 13. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code regarding acts of person of unsound mind is: "84. Act of a person of unsound mind - Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the fact, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law." 14. To claim exception under Section 84 necessarily is to be proved (i) unsoundness (ii) at the time of act (offence) and of nature (iii) making him incapable of knowing either (a) the nature of act or (b) consequence of act that can be. Law presumes every person to be of sound unless otherwise is proved. Unsoundness is to be proved by or on behalf of person claiming so. Same is principle derivable according to provisions of Evidence Act. 15. Appellant at the relevant time i.e. November, 2002 was less than 20 years, so is recorded in medical report Ex. P/10 and also in memo of arrest Ex. P/4 and observed in April, 04 by the Court is 22 years. Persons of such age are of mature understanding. Same is principle derivable according to provisions of Evidence Act. 15. Appellant at the relevant time i.e. November, 2002 was less than 20 years, so is recorded in medical report Ex. P/10 and also in memo of arrest Ex. P/4 and observed in April, 04 by the Court is 22 years. Persons of such age are of mature understanding. Having look at yet other provisions, age of 16 is normally presumed to be well understanding - atleast contrary is to be proved. A perusal of record and reports show following (i) letter dated 20.2.03 and 27.2.03 of Assistant Sub Jailor, Sub Jail Bali describe that per opinion of Medical officer prisoner is to be admitted at Mental Hospital, Jodhpur (ii) order of Court on 28.3.03for so (iii) medical report dated 2.4.03 medical college, Jodhpur state that appellant admitted on 31.3.03 and examined- not suffering from any such disease and competent to defend himself (iv) on letter of 29.4.03 of Assistant Jailor again ordered on 5.5.03 for Jodhpur hospital - admitted on 7.5.03 found suffering from acute psychosis and then doctor opined on 8.7.03 that can be treated out of hospital. Same retreated by hospital on 7.8.03. In order-sheet dated 8.9.03 clear are the findings of the Court that appellant is normal. 16. The word "psychosis" is described in Medical Dictionary as a term applied to any mental disorder but generally restricted to disturbances of magnitude of personality disintegration and loss of contact with reality. Thus, it is general mental disorder. Acute psychosis may mean some disturbance or disenchantment which hardly can be unsoundness of magnitude needed for application of Section 84 IPC. Being disturbed or occasional depressed or any feeling finding little hope or like things and even little strange a attitude to some extent can hardly be taken to be unsoundness or insanity. 17. Medical officer of Government Hospital PW/12 say that on 13.11.02 on police request, he examining appellant for potency prepared report Ex. P/10 and he was found potent- in cross-examination states that when appellant brought to him, he seemed mentally ill who could not supply his spermazoma even after trying for hour as was directed by him. PW/12 says that as appellant could not supply spermazoma and behaviour also was not normal, therefore, appeared to be mentally not well. Report Ex. P/10 and he was found potent- in cross-examination states that when appellant brought to him, he seemed mentally ill who could not supply his spermazoma even after trying for hour as was directed by him. PW/12 says that as appellant could not supply spermazoma and behaviour also was not normal, therefore, appeared to be mentally not well. Report Ex. P/10 does not state about mental state and further reason assigned is not relevant because incident is of 12.11.02 and appellant arrested on same day examined medically forenoon next day, so nervousness or like in such circumstances was natural to follow. 18. For above, Man Singh PW/3 state that accused being insane and not understanding since beginning was made to reside only at agricultural field. No other evidence of that is. 19. Considering medical evidence and other facts established, above statement of PW/3 leads nowhere. 20. Looking to above, it cannot be said and argued that the appellant was of unsound mind cannot stand. 21. Here it may be pointed out that no evidence or circumstance exists showing some such happening at the relevant time or in earlier days so as to lead to any deep disturbance to appellant. 22. A look at evidence of Medical Officer PW/6 with report Ex. P/9 prove that on 13.11.02 when victim R was examined found that (i) upper body parts were not developed (ii) external genitals not developed (iii) no hairs on genital or other organs. Further found in the person of R (i) on left side of clitoris abrasion 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm (ii) on right side clitoris abrasion 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm (iii) administering an aesthesia catheter inserted and on examination found hymen freshly torn- (ii) lacerated wound 3 cm x 2cm deep upto posterior wall of urethra with bleeding (iii) lacerated wound 3 cm x 3 cm at 3cm depth (iv) anus ruptured with abrasion (v) Anterior rectal wall reputured. Wound and stool were getting mixed. 23. Injuries caused within 24 hours. With these injuries, blood mixing to stool, there can be no hesitation in observing that the act done with all force irrespective of grievous injuries. Medical officer in cross-examination also says that leaving aside rarest occasions, injuries cannot be caused by tampering with wood like article. 24. Wound and stool were getting mixed. 23. Injuries caused within 24 hours. With these injuries, blood mixing to stool, there can be no hesitation in observing that the act done with all force irrespective of grievous injuries. Medical officer in cross-examination also says that leaving aside rarest occasions, injuries cannot be caused by tampering with wood like article. 24. With above, as proved by Doctor PW/12, on person of appellant on 13.11.02 were following injuries of 18-22 hours:- (i) Bruise on penis 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm. (ii) Bruise on posterior part of penis 1/2 cm x 3/4 cm. These injuries or organ substantially corroborates commission of the alleged act. 25. Without describing much in detail, deposition of I.O. SHO PW/21 seen and read with that of evidence of motbitrs PW/1, PW/4, PW/5, PW/11 with prepared memos, is proved that examining the site on same day, pieces of nivar, blood stained cement pieces were seized. Also proved is that appellant arrested on 12.11.02 and his worn pant shirt underwear also seized and sealed. On 12.11.02 clothes of victim presented by her mother. 26. Evidence of ASI PW/22 and that of Constables PW/18, 20, 15 read with FSL receipt Ex.P/13 and report Ex.P/18 inference is that packets of all the articles seized including that of vaginal smear and swab of victim collected were delivered at FSL with forwarding letter Ex. P/12 and 17. Report admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 400/02 dated 3.2.03 of FSL on record with describe that on all articles except of cement floor including clothes was human blood. Stains on Pant Kameez of accused and shirt of victim of blood group A. All these proved facts strongly corroborative of the act. Certificate obtained by I.O. Ex. P/20 dated 24.12.02 purporting of and under seal of Headmaster mentions victim taking education in Class II of described Govt. School record having date of birth recorded 28.6.95. 27. Radiologist Medical officer at Government Hospital Dr. Rao PW/19 depose that of R daughter of K, X-ray was taken on 13.11.02 in his presence and his report about her age is Ex. P/15- as per finding based on x-ray Ex. P/13 and Ex. P/14, PW.12 age of R to be 5-6 years variable by two years. All these taken together, age of victim mentioned is 6 years. Rao PW/19 depose that of R daughter of K, X-ray was taken on 13.11.02 in his presence and his report about her age is Ex. P/15- as per finding based on x-ray Ex. P/13 and Ex. P/14, PW.12 age of R to be 5-6 years variable by two years. All these taken together, age of victim mentioned is 6 years. All these facts prove that on the date of incident, R was of about 5-6-7 years and not more than 7-8 years. 28. Girl R PW/7 state that she came from school in afternoon around 3 PM then she and S-daughter of material aunt-went to relieve and there came accused who first tried to get hold of S who ran away then she caught by accused and taken to his field where physical act committed in between thighs and stated that on shouting came her mother and also Lakha Ram, Roopa etc. 29. Ms. S PW/17, 7 years is daughter of sister of mother of victim who also say that she and sister both were out to behind school to relieve themselves and there came accused who forcibly getting hold of R took her forcibly away and she the witness runningly came home and narrated to her and also R's mother, who runningly went after S. instantly. 30. Mother Smt. G PW/8 says that daughter R came from school at 3 PM afternoon and went with daughter of her sister for relieving in ground and soon runningly came S and told her of R taken by one who will throw her in the well. So this witness went quick and reached at the field of accused Shrawan where over daughter R was accused and R was bleeding with clothes blood stained. On seeing her accused stood up and tried to clear blood. Also came Roopa Ram and Lakha Ram and accused ray away and they rushed R to hospital and then reported at P.S. 31. Smt. J, PW/9 is the mother of S who substantiate above version and state that runningly came back her daughter S and told G (mother of R) and then to this witness of above happenings so she went and found that near school, mother and other were bringing R. 32. Smt. J, PW/9 is the mother of S who substantiate above version and state that runningly came back her daughter S and told G (mother of R) and then to this witness of above happenings so she went and found that near school, mother and other were bringing R. 32. Smt. R. PW/13, 55 years stating R to be grand-daughter of her husband's elder brother depose that S coming told her of R taken away by accused Shrawan, so she also followed mother of R and found mother of R bringing her who was bleeding and G mother told of act committed by accused and brought by her in above position. 33. Regarding the act, the victim R also clearly deposes and need not be mentioned here. There is absolutely no reason to doubt or not to believe version of R or S except that they are child witnesses. Questions asked by Court find mention in their statements and other factors leads to inference that they are telling being very well understanding and correct. Applying principles regarding testimony of child witnesses, absolutely no reason to judge their testimony. Corroboration if at all is still needed, are many. 34. Lakha Ram PW/5 depose that he was sitting in chowk Smt. G mother of R crying and shouting about killing of daughter was going, so he also followed her and at house at field of Himmat Singh (father of accused) was accused over person of R and looking them arriving accused ray away- when reached near found that R is bleeding who was raped- she brought quickly- and he reported matter to police and lodged report Ex. P/8. In cross-examination PW/5 states that S had told of the incident to mother of R and he did see scuffle from a distance of 50 ft and this field of accused is out of town. 35. Man Singh PW/3 state that mother with R were in town near hotel and mother was shouting by telling of incident. 36. Shrawan Singh PW.10 state that at his hotel came this girl his mother and other women - girl was bleeding and G telling of physical act by accused and girl unconscious like was rushed to hospital. 37. Above evidence of PW/10 and other fortifyingly corroborates, corroboration if at all is needed. 36. Shrawan Singh PW.10 state that at his hotel came this girl his mother and other women - girl was bleeding and G telling of physical act by accused and girl unconscious like was rushed to hospital. 37. Above evidence of PW/10 and other fortifyingly corroborates, corroboration if at all is needed. The evidence of PW.7, 11 8 and 9 read with medical evidence completely proves commission of the act that is raped by appellant with R. 38. No reason is not to accept any portion of these witnesses. 39. Smt. G admits of old enmity between families of them and also that her husband i.e. father of R is facing murder trial for killing father of accused and also mentions of this case consequential to that Ms. R PW-13 also says that father of Ris facing trial for murdering father of accused. Roopa Ram PW-17 uncle of R admits of he and brother facing trial of murder of father of accused. 40. Learned counsel argues that thus deep being enmity between parties and PW.7 and PW. 16 being witness of 6-7 years with atleast some possibility of injuries being sustained in some other manner, possibility of falsely implicating appellant cannot be ruled out and so is quite possible. 41. Enemical terms as above is apparent. Enmity is a double edged weapon. Same type of argument can be against appellant. But simultaneously, apparent is the very deeply caused injuries to victim of 6-7 years. For creating any untrue incident definitely such injuries cannot be caused or created. Solely for this reason, above arguments are merit less. 42. Oral evidence read with medical evidence fortifyingly corroborative is strong enough to eliminate every other possibility except commission of the act and consequently offence by appellant. 43. In view of above, the appellant is rightly convicted for the offence under Section 376(2)(f), 363 and 323 IPC. No question or any circumstances are and can be for in any way reducing or altering the sentence. 44. Accordingly, upholding, the judgment dated 12.5.04 in Sessions Case No. 23/03, conviction of appellant and sentence awarded of ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine is sustained. The appeal having no force is rejected.