JUDGMENT Jitendra Chauhan, J 1. On 2.12.1996, the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala charge-sheeted the accused-respondent under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for committing rape upon Sukhmaya, aged six years, on 20.7.1996. 2. The brief facts of the case stand reflected in para 2 of the order dated 3.1.1998 of the trial Court: “That Tikka Bahadur complainant (PW7) was employed in Punjab Bones Mill G.T. Road, Chaheru. He along with his wife and children was residing within the Mills' Premises in the quarters. The complainant and his wife used to go for work in the factory daily at 8.00 a.m. and they used to return at 5.00 p.m. In their absence, their children in which included Sukhmaya (PW6), six years old daughter of the complainant, used to stay back at the quarter. On 20.7.1996, when the complainant and his wife Deo Kala returned from factory after work and reached their quarter at 5.00 p.m., they noticed that Sukhmaya was wearing a frock which was blood stained and blood was oozing from her private part. She was lying unconscious on a wooden bed. Tikka Bahadur complainant thought that she has suffered some injury and he accompanied with his wife Deo Kala took her to Civil Hospital, Phagwara for treatment. The doctor at the hospital admitted Sukhmaya as Indoor patient and she was medically examined on 20.7.1996. According to the complainant, when Sukhmaya regained consciousness properly, she disclosed that the person who operated tubewell had on 20.7.1996 at about 3.00 p.m. caught hold of her from her arms and that he took her inside the tubewell room where he bolted the door of the room from inside and had committed rape upon her. From the said disclosure, the complainant came to know that it was accused Gura Singh who had committed rape upon his minor daughter Sukhmaya and that on the basis of the same, he made statement Ex.PR before police on 22.7.1996 ASI Paramjit Singh (PW9), the Investigating Officer made his endorsement Ex.PR/1 on the same and sent it to Police Station Sadar, Phagwara for registration on a case against the accused. On the basis of the same, formal FIR Ex.PR/2 was recorded by ASI Tirath Singh. The Investigating Officer accompanied with Tikka Bahadur complainant and Surjan Bahadur inspected the place of occurrence at the tubewell in the Mills and recorded the statements of Sukhmaya prosecutrix and other witnesses. On the basis of the same, formal FIR Ex.PR/2 was recorded by ASI Tirath Singh. The Investigating Officer accompanied with Tikka Bahadur complainant and Surjan Bahadur inspected the place of occurrence at the tubewell in the Mills and recorded the statements of Sukhmaya prosecutrix and other witnesses. ASI Paramjit Singh also took into police possession frock Ex.Pq of Sukhmaya which was produced before him by the complainant. The Investigating Officer on the next day took Sukhmaya to civil hospital, Phagwara where she was medically examined by Dr.Jaswinder Kaur Bains again. The prosecutrix was also subjected to further medical examination by Surgeon and the lady doctor. She was also subjected to Radiological examination for determining her age. The accused was arrested on 15.8.1996 and he was also got medically examined from Civil Hospital, Phagwara on 16.8.1996. The statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On 21.8.1996. On completion of the investigation, the accused was challaned by the S.H.O. Police Station, Sadar Phagwara.” 3. In order to establish its case against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses. However, the material witnesses were PW2 Dr.Rajan Gupta, PW3 Dr.Surjit Singh Mahi, PW5 Dr.Jaswinder Kaur Bains, PW6 Sukhmaya, PW7 Tikka Bahadur, PW9 ASI Paramjit Singh and PW13 Dr.Narinder Singh. 4. PW2 Dr.Rajan Gupta medically examined accused Gura Singh on 16.8.1996 and opined that there was nothing to suggest that the accused was unable to perform sexual intercourse. 5. PW3, Dr.Surjit Singh, conducted surgical examination of the victim, Sukhmaya, on 25.7.1996 under anesthesia and noticed the following: Abdomen : contour normal moving with respiration all the querands, unbilicus and hernial sites normal. No mark of injury. Palpation : Abdomen soft, no mass palpable. Non-tender. On percussion : Normal percussion note. Urinary bladder empty. Perianal examination : No marks of injury around the anus. Per rectum examination : Spincter (anal) tone normal, slight fecal matter in the rectum anteriorly posteriorly and all around no abnormality palpable. Proctosopy : Healthy muscucsa, no injury or inflamed muccusa. No injury to anal muccsa. Urethral opening (metus normal). 6. PW5, Dr.Jaswinder Kaur Bains, conducted medical examination of Sukhmaya. On local examination, the doctor noticed as under: The side of the legs were stained with clotted blood upto the ankles. Proctosopy : Healthy muscucsa, no injury or inflamed muccusa. No injury to anal muccsa. Urethral opening (metus normal). 6. PW5, Dr.Jaswinder Kaur Bains, conducted medical examination of Sukhmaya. On local examination, the doctor noticed as under: The side of the legs were stained with clotted blood upto the ankles. The child was not wearing underclothes and was wearing only multi colour frock which was stained with blood at places. The vulva and perineum were stained with clotted blood and fresh blood was also coming through vaginal orifice. The fourchette was torn in its middle portion involving superficial skin as muccsa of posterior vaginal wall upper extent of which could not be determined. The backward extent was upto the middle of perineum. The hymen was torn posteriorly in middle upto its attachment with vaginal which was also bleeding. 7. PW5 further deposed that the victim left the hospital against medical advice on 21.7.1996. The doctor had taken vulva swab from vaginal discharge and sent the same along with frock of Sukhmaya to Chemical Examiner at Patiala. On 23.7.1996, an application for medical examination of Sukhmaya was moved because her medical examination was not conducted on 20.7.1996, when she was admitted only for treatment. On an application moved by the police, the present witness opined that the possibility of rape having been committed upon Sukhmaya could not be ruled out. 8. PW6, Sukhmaya, and PW7, Tikka Bahadur, made statements which corroborated the statements made before the police by them. 9. PW13, Dr.Narinder Singh, PHC, Phagwara proved from the OPD register of the said hospital that Sukhmaya was brought to the hospital on 20.7.1996 at 6.30 p.m. As per the record of the hospital, Sukhmaya was bleeding from vagina at that time. 10. After conclusion of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. He further set up a defence that he was unable to perform sexual intercourse on account of his advance age, and had been falsely implicated on account of pressure of Mill Management in order to please Nepali labour. 11. The trial Court formulated the following questions for determination: (1) Whether accused Gura Singh committed rape upon Sukhmaya prosecutrix on 20.7.1996 at about 3.30 p.m. in the area of Bone Factory Chaheru? 11. The trial Court formulated the following questions for determination: (1) Whether accused Gura Singh committed rape upon Sukhmaya prosecutrix on 20.7.1996 at about 3.30 p.m. in the area of Bone Factory Chaheru? (2) Whether there is delay in lodging the report with the police, if so, whether the same has been explained by the prosecution? (3) Whether the medical evidence is consistent with the ocular evidence produced by the prosecution? 12. The trial Court after considering the statement of PW5, Dr.Jaswinder Kaur Bains, recorded that the complainant had refused medicolegal examination for the reason that he had no knowledge about the person who committed rape upon her daughter. The complainant in his deposition also stated that he carried the impression that the injuries were received while playing. 13. Inconsistency regarding the date of making the statement before the Investigating Officer was also noticed by the trial Court. The Investigating Officer visited the hospital on 20.7.1996. However, for the reasons not known, the statement of the complainant was not recorded, or the complainant refused to make any statement on the day of the occurrence. The fact remains that the Investigating Officer did not record the statement of the complainant or his wife or the prosecutrix on 20.7.1996 itself, ultimately observing it to be not possible at that stage that the complainant had any version to be disclosed to the police for taking action against the accused. 14. On 21.8.1996, the statement of PW6, Sukhmaya, under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara. Certain improvements in the later statement of PW6 were noticed including the factum of her admission that she had been tutored by the police. These were found to be material improvements by the trial Court 15. The trial Court observed that forty eight hours' delay in lodging the FIR stands unexplained and the possibility of the complainant having brought in an ocular version in order to falsely implicate the accused could not be ruled out. Thus, the delay read with other infirmities, was found to be fatal to the case of the prosecution. 16. The trial Court disbelieved the version put forth by the prosecutrix PW6, and her father PW7, Tikka Bahadur, on the ground that he suppressed the incident for forty eight hours. Thus, the delay read with other infirmities, was found to be fatal to the case of the prosecution. 16. The trial Court disbelieved the version put forth by the prosecutrix PW6, and her father PW7, Tikka Bahadur, on the ground that he suppressed the incident for forty eight hours. By making a reference to the statement of PW5, Dr.Jaswinder Kaur Bains, regarding her opinion dated 20.7.1996 that after observing the injury to surrounding areas of vagina, the help of an anesthetist and a surgeon was required, which was not furnished till 25.7.1996. As per report of the Surgeon, Exhibit PF, no mark of injury was found around the anus, on the basis of which the trial Court observed that the fact that Sukhmaya was subjected to rape, as alleged by the prosecution, was not established. The trial Court further relied upon the fact that there was an unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, and an admission by the prosecutrix in cross-examination that she had been tutored by the police prior to her making the statement before the Magistrate. The complainant had given in writing as well that he neither wanted to get the prosecutrix medically examined nor any criminal proceedings against any one. On the basis of which, the trial Court held that it was highly doubtful and suspicious that Sukhmaya was subjected to rape by the accused. The trial Court further observed that the statement of the prosecutrix did not inspire confidence and was not worthy of being relied upon, particularly when there was no corroboration of the same either by ocular evidence or medical evidence. 17. The trial Court also made a mention about the manner in which the investigation was conducted. The trial Court also observed that it had not been explained as to why the statement of the complainant was not recorded on 20.7.1996 itself. Nor was there any explanation as to why the Investigating Officer did not visit the hospital on 21.7.1996, coupled with the fact that during cross-examination, the Investigating Officer admitted that he visited the hospital on 21.7.1996 but made wrong endorsement. On this basis, the trial Court recorded that the investigation was not fair and proper and the same could not be taken into account for recording conviction against the accused. On this basis, the trial Court recorded that the investigation was not fair and proper and the same could not be taken into account for recording conviction against the accused. Accordingly, the trial Court held that it was established that the prosecution had not succeeded in bringing home the guilt against the accused, and gave the benefit of doubt to the accused. The trial Court acquitted the accused of the charge framed against him. 18. The present appeal preferred by the State of Punjab is directed against the order dated 3.1.1998 passed by the trial Court. Application of the appellant under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for permission to file an appeal was allowed by this Court on 24.7.1998. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has committed patent error in not appreciating the fact that the age of the prosecutrix was about eight years. The prosecutrix had made a categoric statement regarding the manner in which occurrence took place, which was fully corroborated by the statement of her father, PW7, Tikka Bahadur. 20. It was further argued that the trial Court has not given any reason for ignoring the statement of PW2, Dr.Rajan Gupta, who medically examined accused Gura Singh on 16.8.1996 and found that there was nothing to suggest that the accused was unable to perform sexual intercourse. It was further proved by the statement of PW3, Dr.Narinder Singh, PHC, Phagwara that as per the hospital record, victim Sukhmaya was bleeding from vagina when she was brought to the hospital on 20.7.1996 at 6.30 p.m. It was further submitted that in cases of rape, it is the general tendency of the parents not to report the matter to the police in order to save the reputation of the family and avoid the stigma on the victim for rest of her life. 21. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the first instance the complainant tried to suppress the information. The complainant did not lodge the FIR since he was not aware of the person who had committed rape upon her daughter. The patient was shifted from the hospital against the advice of the doctor. There was no pressure upon him for not lodging the FIR. The FIR was lodged after due deliberation and a long delay of forty eight hours. 22. The patient was shifted from the hospital against the advice of the doctor. There was no pressure upon him for not lodging the FIR. The FIR was lodged after due deliberation and a long delay of forty eight hours. 22. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 23. Admittedly, there are certain improvements and inconsistencies in the statement made by the prosecutrix. However, there is no inconsistency regarding the fact that rape was committed upon her by the accused. The victim in the present case is of a tender age of about six-eight years. Father of the prosecutrix is a labourer and an illiterate person. 24. Our society represents the characteristics of a closed society, particularly in the context of women folk. The characteristics of a closed society become more pronounced in the lower strata of the society. This is also of common knowledge that initial reaction of the parents of rape victims is to suppress the incident, which results into delay in lodging the FIR. As such, the observation of the trial Court regarding delay is contrary to the general perception of the society and is bereft of realistic approach, which the court of justice is duty bound to adopt, particularly when the parties in terms of resources are placed unequally. Therefore, we disagree with the finding of the trial Court that delay in lodging the FIR is fatal in the present case. 25. The next conclusion recorded by the trial Court that there was inconsistency and lack of corroboration in the ocular and medical evidence. The trial Court, in our view, failed to take notice of the medical record produced by PW13, Dr.Narinder Singh, PHC, Phagwara, on the basis of which, it was established that on 20.7.1996 at 6.30 p.m., when the victim was brought to the hospital, she was bleeding from vagina. The opinion of PW5, Dr.Jaswinder Kaur Bains, that the possibility of rape having been committed upon Sukhmaya could not be ruled out is equally relevant. The defence set up by the accused, when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that on account of his age, he was unable of performing sexual intercourse, also stands falsified in view of the opinion rendered by PW2, Dr.Rajan Gupta, who medically examined the accused on 16.8.1996. The defence set up by the accused, when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that on account of his age, he was unable of performing sexual intercourse, also stands falsified in view of the opinion rendered by PW2, Dr.Rajan Gupta, who medically examined the accused on 16.8.1996. As per the report there was nothing to suggest that the accused was unable to perform sexual intercourse. 26. With pain and anguish, we record that the trial Court failed to take realistic and objective view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. The trial Court overlooked the statements of the prosecutrix that rape was committed upon her. Once there is consistency about committing the rape, the hyper-technical irregularities during trial can be safely ignored and a practical view that ensures justice to the victim, requires to be taken. A mechanical and hyper-technical approach in the cases of the instant nature do not advance the cause of justice delivery system; rather it encourages the offender to repeat the crime. 27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996 (2) SCC 175) held that it is the nature and gravity of the crime but not the criminal, which are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should “respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal”. If for extremely heinous crime of murder perpetrated in a very brutal manner without any provocation, most deterrent punishment is not given, the case of deterrent punishment will lose its relevance. 28. In view of the above, it is clear that the order dated 3.1.1998 passed by the trial Court suffers from a serious lapse in not appreciating the facts in true perspective. Resultantly, the judgment of the trial Court is hereby set aside. The charge against the accused stands established. 28. In view of the above, it is clear that the order dated 3.1.1998 passed by the trial Court suffers from a serious lapse in not appreciating the facts in true perspective. Resultantly, the judgment of the trial Court is hereby set aside. The charge against the accused stands established. Accordingly, the accused is convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and is ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years. He shall also be liable to a fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The State is directed to take the accused in custody forthwith for undergoing the sentence. However, the period already undergone by the accused shall be set-off against the total sentence awarded. Order accordingly.