JUDGMENT : R.N. Biswal, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.7.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Balangir (hereinafter referred to as "the C.J.M.") in Sessions Case No. 116-B/20 of 2004 convicting the accused-Appellant for the offence u/s 376 of I.P.C. and sentencing him thereunder to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine Rs. 5,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for a further period of one year. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details the prosecution case is that on 20.5.2004 at about 10.00 A.M., on a Thursday while P.W.9, a young girl of about 16 years old was going to her cultivable land to collect firewood, on the way near a Palash tree, the accused forcibly caught hold of her, laid her down on the ground, undraped her inner garment (Chadi) and forcibly committed sexual intercourse without her consent and against her will. The victim struggled to release herself from the clutches of the accused but in vain. So, she raised hulla hearing which, Bariha Biswal, father of the victim, P.W.4, Arjun Biswal P.W.5, Upendra Bisi, P.W.6 and Chaitan Biswal, brother of the victim P.W.7, all of whom were working in the nearby brick kiln of Khirodra Pradhan (P.W.13) rushed to the spot, at the sight of whom the accused took to his heels. They all saw the victim to have sustained injuries on her back and left elbow joint and brought her home. As P.W.4, father of the victim was illiterate, on the same day he went to the village Santika to call his brother-in-law, P.W.12 to accompany him to the Police Station, but he was found absent. So, P.W.4 intimated the fact to his wife and told her to send her husband to his house on the next day. Accordingly, on the next day of occurrence, P.W.12 went to the house of P.W.4 and thereafter, P.Ws.12, 9 and 3 (mother of the victim) went to Salebhata Out Post to lodge report but found the A.S.I. absent. On the next day, they went to Salebhata Out Post and again found the A.S.I. absent. So, one constable sent them to Loisingha Police Station. Accordingly, on 21.5.2004 they went to Loisingha Police Station, where P.W.9 lodged a written report before the S.I. of Police, P.W.15. On the next day, they went to Salebhata Out Post and again found the A.S.I. absent. So, one constable sent them to Loisingha Police Station. Accordingly, on 21.5.2004 they went to Loisingha Police Station, where P.W.9 lodged a written report before the S.I. of Police, P.W.15. As the allegation contained in the F.I.R. revealed a cognizable case u/s 376 of I.P.C., P.W.15 registered P.S. Case No. 49 of 2004 and took up investigation. In course of investigation, he examined the witnesses, sent the victim and the accused for medical examination, visited the spot, seized the wearing apparels of the victim, the Admission Register of Rampur High School, where the victim was reading, seized the Lungi of the accused and after completion of investigation finding a prima facie case u/s 376 of I.P.C. submitted charge sheet there under against the accused. The Case having been committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bolangir was transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, who framed charge u/s 376 of I.P.C. against the accused and on his denial to the charge, commenced the trial. 3. In order to bring home the charge levelled against the accused, prosecution examined 16 witnesses in all, as against none by the defence. 4. After assessing the evidence on record, and mainly basing on the evidence of P.Ws.4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and the doctor P.W.16, the trial Court found the accused guilty u/s 376 of I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him there under as noted earlier. 5. In this appeal the accused (hereinafter referred as "Appellant") has challenged the said order of conviction and sentence. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the trial Court erred in convicting the Appellant solely basing on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim. Evidence is weighed and not counted. Even on the evidence of a solitary witness, more so, the victim in a case of rape conviction can be maintained if the evidence is found to be reliable trustworthy, clinching and beyond reproach. In the present case, as found from the evidence of P.W.9, the victim, while she was going to her cultivable land to collect fire wood, the Appellant who was standing under a Palash tree, caught hold of her, laid her down on the ground, removed her inner garment (Chadi) and ravished her. Even though she was cross examined at length, nothing could be elicited to shake her credibility. Even though she was cross examined at length, nothing could be elicited to shake her credibility. The defence failed to elicit any motive either from the victim herself or from any other witnesses to falsely rope the Appellant in such a heinous offence like rape at the stake of the chastity and marriage prospect of the victim. So, there is no reason to suspect the veracity of the victim. Moreover, besides the evidence of the victim, it transpires from the evidence of P.Ws.4, 5, 6 and 7 that hearing hulla raised by the victim, they all of whom were working at a nearby brick kiln, rushed to the spot, at the sight of whom the Appellant fled away. Apart from all these, the evidence of P.W.16, the doctor, who examined the victim on 22.5.2004 shows that she found two lacerations on the labia minora of the victim, besides one abrasion and two bruises over her right side back and another bruise over her right arm. In view of the external injuries on the body and the internal injury on genital of the victim, P.W.16, the doctor, specifically opined that there was forcible intercourse on the victim. So, the submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant that the trial Court ought not have convicted the Appellant on the evidence of a solitary witness cannot stand. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, next submitted that the wearing apparels of the victim as well as the Appellant were sent to Director, S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar for chemical analysis and as per the report, no semen could be detected therein. So, the trial Court ought have acquitted the Appellant under benefit of doubt. As found from the evidence of P.W.9 after she was brought to her house from the place of occurrence, her mother washed her clothes. So, it was natural that no semen could be detected on her clothes. As regards lungi of the Appellant, it is found from the seizure list, exhibit 5 that it was seized on 20.7.2004 two months after the occurrence. It cannot be said that it was not washed for two months to see that the semen stain would be there, so as to help the prosecution to detect it through chemical examination and utilize the same against the Appellant. So, non-detection of semen on the Lungi of the Appellant would in no way affect the prosecution. It cannot be said that it was not washed for two months to see that the semen stain would be there, so as to help the prosecution to detect it through chemical examination and utilize the same against the Appellant. So, non-detection of semen on the Lungi of the Appellant would in no way affect the prosecution. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, next submitted that as found from the evidence of the victim, she did not raise hulla, while being sexually assaulted. So the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 7 that hearing hulla raised by the victim, they rushed to the spot is a cock and bull story. On perusal of the evidence in chief of P.W.9, it is found that she stated to have raised hulla, while being raped. However, in her cross examination, she denied to have done so. The victim was only about 16 years old. While facing piercing cross examination of the defence counsel, only because she denied to have raised such hulla, cannot efface her evidence in examination in Chief that she raised hulla. Moreover, P.Ws.4 to 7 deposed that hearing hulla raised by P.W.9, all of them, who were working in a nearby brick kiln of P.W.13 rushed to the spot, at whose sight the Appellant fled away leaving P.W.9. Furthermore, P.W.13, the brick kiln owner corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 7 by deposing that hearing hulla raised by the victim, all of them, who were working in his brick kiln rushed to the spot. There is no reason as to why all the witnesses would depose falsehood against the Appellant. Learned Counsel for the Appellant next submitted that the occurrence took place on 20.5.2004 at 10 A.M., but the F.I.R. was lodged on 21.5.09 at about 6.30 p.m. and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. having not been satisfactorily explained, the trial Court ought have acquitted the Appellant on the ground alone. In support of his submission, he relied on the decisions in the case of Ladu Kishore Pradhan v. State of Orissa, 2007 (2) OLR 156 and State v. Sarat Chandra Rout 2006 (1) OLR 600 . In support of his submission, he relied on the decisions in the case of Ladu Kishore Pradhan v. State of Orissa, 2007 (2) OLR 156 and State v. Sarat Chandra Rout 2006 (1) OLR 600 . On perusal of the evidence of P.W.4, the father of the victim, it is found that since he was illiterate, he needed the assistance of his brother-in-law, P.W.12 to lodge the report and on the very day of occurrence, he first went to his house (brother-in-law) and as he was found absent, intimated this fact to his wife and requested her to send her husband to his house. Accordingly, when P.W.12 came to his house on the next day, P.Ws.3, 4, 9 and 12 went to Salebhata Out-Post to lodge the F.I.R., but the A.S.I., was found absent. On the next date when the A.S.I. was found absent, a constable directed them to lodge the report at Loisingha Police Station and accordingly they lodged the report on the same day. So the delay has been properly explained. Moreover, mere delay of two days is not enough to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.9, particularly when the same has been corroborated by the evidence of the doctor and other witnesses. The decisions cited by the Appellant would not be applicable to this case. 7. The trial Court has taken all aspects of the case into consideration and there is nothing wrong in the order of conviction to be interfered with by this Court. 8. With regard to the order of sentence, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant was a young boy of 23 years at the time of occurrence. There is no criminal antecedent against him. Since there was no nail or tooth bite mark on the person of the victim, it cannot be said that the Appellant made the sexual assault like a brute. So, learned Counsel for the Appellant prayed to reduce the sentence imposed by the trial Court. 9. Regard being had to the submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant and taking into consideration the over all aspects of the case, in my considered opinion, it would meet the ends of justice if the sentence of fine is set aside and the substantive sentence as awarded by the trial Court is reduced from ten years to seven years. 10. 10. Accordingly, the Appellant is only sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court is modified to that extent only. The period for which the Appellant was in jail including the U.T.P. period in the aforesaid case shall be set off. 11. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed with only modification of sentence as aforesaid. Final Result : Dismissed