Judgment Ram Chand Gupta, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed against judgment of conviction dated 14.7.2006 and order of sentence dated 18.7.2006, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, vide which the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the `IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that in the intervening night of 11/12.6.2005 at about 12.00 O Clock, prosecutrix (name withheld) alongwith her father and mother was sleeping on the roof of her house. Her father asked her for bringing water and hence, she came down the roof for fetching water. Appellant-accused used to reside in the neighbourhood. When she was about to go up-stairs, after taking water, accused was found standing in the corner of her house. The accused caught hold of her by her hand and pulled her towards him. He put a handkerchief on her mouth. She became semi conscious. She was taken in his house by the accused and committed rape upon her in the state of semi-consciousness. When she regained consciousness, she found herself sitting in the house of the accused by the side of his mother. In the morning when people collected outside the house of the accused, the prosecutrix came to her house and narrated the incident to her mother. The mother narrated the incident to her husband. Many Panchayats were convened in the locality and however, when prosecutrix could not get any justice, she decided to lodge the complaint with the police. Prosecutrix lodged complaint, Ex. P4 with Rameshwar Parshad, Sub Inspector of the Police Station, Ambala Cantt. and narrated him all these facts, who after making an endorsement sent the same to the Police Station for registration of the case, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. The prosecutrix was got medically examined on the same day from Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt. Accused was also arrested on the same day and he was also got medically examined. 3. The prosecutrix was got medically examined on the same day from Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt. Accused was also arrested on the same day and he was also got medically examined. 3. After completing the necessary formalities of the investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.) was filed against the accused for his trial for offence under Section 376 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the then learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt. vide order dated 24.8.2005. Learned Additional Sessions Judge found that, prima facie case for offence under Section 376 IPC is made out against the accused from the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the oral and documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution and, hence, he framed charge for offence under Section 376 IPC against the accused, to which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses. 5. PW1 is Ram Kumar, ASI, who was a formal witness and who tendered in evidence his duly sworned affidavit, Ex. P1. 6. PW2 is Jagmohan Singh, Constable, who was also a formal witness and who also tendered in evidence affidavit of his statement Ex. P2. 7. PW-3 is Mamta Rani, Lady Constable, who had taken the prosecutrix to Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt and got conducted her medico legal examination from Dr. Bela Sharma, who handed over to her a sealed parcel alongwith one sample seal, which was handed over by her to Rameshwar Parshad, Sub Inspector, i.e. Investigating Officer of this case, who had taken the same in police possession vide recovery memo Ex. P3. 8. PW4 is prosecutrix, who supported the prosecution version, as detailed above. She specifically deposed that on the night intervening 11/12.6.2005, at about 12.00 or 12.15, her father demanded a glass of water from her and that when she was about to go upstairs after taking water, accused, present in the Court, was found standing near the corner of her house and he caught hold of her by her arm forcibly and placed handkerchief on her mouth due to which she became semi-conscious. She further deposed that he had taken her inside his house and committed rape upon her. She further deposed that he had taken her inside his house and committed rape upon her. She further deposed that at about 4.30 a.m., when she regained full consciousness, she found that her clothes were put off and she found herself alone in the house and that after some time, mother of accused came there. Thereafter accused and his mother slapped her and also threatened her to kill if she would disclose this incident to anybody at home. She further deposed that 2-3 Panchayats were also convened to punish the accused and, however, she was not given any justice in the Panchayats and hence, she moved application, Ex. P4 before the police, which contained her thumb impression. She also deposed that she was medico legally examined in Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt. on 16.6.2005 and on the same day on her demarcation, police had prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence. She had given her age as 14-1/2 years. 9. PW5 is Dr. T.S, Sahni, who had examined petitioner-accused on 16.6.2005. He has proved medico legal examination report of the accused as Ex. P8. He specifically deposed that on the basis of his examination, possibility cannot be ruled out that the person examined could perform sexual intercourse. 10. PW6 is Dr. Bela Sharma, who had medico legally examined the prosecutrix on the same day. She has also mentioned the age of the prosecutrix as 14 years. The relevant portion of her examination reads as under :- "Per Vaginum examination :- Hymen ruptured, tags were present, hymen admitted two fingers tightly but one finger loosely. Uterus was retroverted, cervix was anteverted." 11 She had further deposed that, in her opinion, the possibility that prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. Further at the same time, she deposed that possibility of rape also could not be ruled out. 12. PW7 is mother of prosecutrix. She also corroborated the version of prosecutrix. Uterus was retroverted, cervix was anteverted." 11 She had further deposed that, in her opinion, the possibility that prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. Further at the same time, she deposed that possibility of rape also could not be ruled out. 12. PW7 is mother of prosecutrix. She also corroborated the version of prosecutrix. She deposed that on the night of 11.6.2005, she alongwith her husband and the prosecutrix was sleeping on the roof of their house when her husband demanded water from prosecutrix, and she came down to fetch water and however, when she did not return even after sufficient long time, they searched for her and that however, at about 5.00 a.m., prosecutrix reached the house and disclosed that when she had come down for taking water, accused had caught hold of her and had put a handkerchief on her mouth due to which she became semi conscious and accused committed rape upon her. She also deposed that her daughter also told her that accused had also removed her clothes. She had also deposed that Panchayat of their locality was convened for about 4-5 times, and thereafter the present complaint was lodged. In the cross- examination, she had given the age of prosecutrix as 14-1/2 years. She also deposed that mark `A does not contain her photograph and photograph of her family members. She also deposed that she did not get registered date of birth of her children in any municipal record or Anganwari. 13. PW8 is Ram Saran, constable-cum-Draftsman, who had prepared scaled site plan Ex. P10 of the place, where rape was committed upon prosecutrix by the accused on her demarcation. He had also prepared scaled site plan, Ex. P11 of the place from where prosecutrix was kidnapped by the accused. 14. PW9 is Rameshwar Parshad, Sub Inspector, i.e., Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that on 16.6.2005, he alongwith other police officials was on patrol duty when prosecutrix lodged her statement Ex. P4 with him. He further deposed that he read over the same to the prosecutrix, who thumb marked the same after duly understanding its contents. He further deposed that he made his endorsement Ex. P12 and sent ruqa to police station for registration of FIR, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. P13 was recorded by Raj Kumar, Sub Inspector. He further deposed that he read over the same to the prosecutrix, who thumb marked the same after duly understanding its contents. He further deposed that he made his endorsement Ex. P12 and sent ruqa to police station for registration of FIR, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. P13 was recorded by Raj Kumar, Sub Inspector. Thereafter he went to the Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt., alongwith the prosecutrix and moved application Ex. P9 for her medico legal examination. He also visited the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence, Ex. 14. He arrested the accused on the same day and got him medico legally examined. 15. PW10 is Jai Singh, Inspector, who was posted as SHO, Police Station Ambala Cantt. on 21.7.2005. He had prepared report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., after completion of the investigation in this case. 16. Statement of accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he denied the versions of the prosecution witnesses. However, he had admitted that he was arrested on 16.6.2005 and was medico legally examined by Dr. T.S. Sahni, who opined that possibility could not be ruled out that he is capable of performing sexual intercourse. He had taken the stand that he was falsely implicated in this case by prosecutrix and her family members in connivance with the police. 17. The accused examined in his defence Ram Kumar, Sub Inspector, Food & supplies, Ambala Cantt., who appeared as DW1 and deposed that there was an application for making ration card in the record in the name of Banarsi Dass son of Chhota lal, which was filled by the party and verified by Municipal Commissioner of that area, wherein the age of daughter of Banarsi Dass has been mentioned as 20 years. He had placed on record the photocopy of the said application form as mark `B. He further deposed that he was not posted at Ambala Cantt. at that time and that the form was not handed over to him and that no date has also been mentioned at mark `B. He had also mentioned that neither Banarsi Dass was known to him personally and nor he was having personal knowledge about preparation of the said ration card. However, he deposed that the old ration card was issued by his office in the year 1998, which is Ex. P15. 18. However, he deposed that the old ration card was issued by his office in the year 1998, which is Ex. P15. 18. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing Public Prosecutor for the State and counsel for the accused, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 19. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there is inordinate delay of five days in lodging the FIR and hence, FIR has been lodged after due deliberations and consultations giving a coloured version to the occurrence to falsely implicate the accused in this case. He further contended that prosecutrix was about 20 years of age and hence, it cannot be said that any offence has been committed by the accused. He further argues that there are also some improvements and discrepancies in the statements of prosecutrix and her mother and that hence, no reliance can be placed upon their testimonies. He also contended that the incident, as narrated by the prosecution, cannot be believed. 20. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that prosecution has been able to prove that the prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age and that deposition of prosecutrix is a reliable one and inspires confidence and moreover the same is duly corroborated by deposition of her mother and as well as by medical evidence and other evidences as per the investigation report. He also contended that delay in lodging the FIR has been duly explained by the prosecutrix and her mother and hence, it is contended that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. 21. So far as delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, law is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR in cases of sexual offences is due to variety of reasons. Prosecutrix was a minor girl. Accused also used to reside in her neighbourhood. It has been explained by the prosecutrix as well as by her mother that many Panchayats were convened and there is no suggestion from the side of the accused in the cross-examination of the witnesses that no such Panchayat was held. No such plea was also taken by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that no such Panchayat was held. Honour of the family was also involved. No such plea was also taken by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that no such Panchayat was held. Honour of the family was also involved. Hence, taking into consideration all these facts, the delay in lodging the FIR can be said to be properly explained by the prosecutrix and her mother. 22. On the point of delay in lodging the FIR in cases of sexual offences, it has been observed by Honble Apex Court in State of Punjab V/s. Gurmit Singh 1996(1) RCR (Criminal) 533 as under : "8................. The Courts cannot overlook the fact that in sexual offences delay in the lodging of the FIR can be due to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go the police and complain about the incident which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of her family. It is only after giving it a cool thought that a complaint of sexual offences is generally lodged........." 23. So far as some improvements and contradictions in the statements of prosecutrix and her mother are concerned, the same are also not material in this case as to create any doubt in the veracity of prosecutrix and her mother in the mind of this court. In the statement before the police, prosecutrix stated that when she gained consciousness, she found sitting herself with mother of the accused and, however, in her deposition before the Court, she deposed that she was alone when she gained consciousness and mother came there later on. She also deposed that she was given beatings by the accused and her mother, whereas she has not stated so in her statement before the police. Further she has deposed that she had come alone to her house, whereas her mother told that she was brought by her Fufa. The other discrepancy pointed out is that she deposed that there is a police chowki in the locality and, however, no police official remained present in the night, whereas her mother deposed that there is no police chowki in the locality. Prosecutrix resides in Deha Colony, whereas policy chowki is in Housing Board Colony, though both the localities are adjoining. The other discrepancy pointed out is that she deposed that there is a police chowki in the locality and, however, no police official remained present in the night, whereas her mother deposed that there is no police chowki in the locality. Prosecutrix resides in Deha Colony, whereas policy chowki is in Housing Board Colony, though both the localities are adjoining. Hence, if the statement of prosecutrix was not recorded in detail by the Investigating Officer and if she has given certain other details in her deposition before the Court, it cannot be said that no reliance can be placed upon her testimony. Moreover she specifically deposed that she had stated before the police that she was given beatings by accused and his mother and, however, the said fact was not recorded by the Investigating Officer. 24. Law is well settled that statement of prosecutrix, if inspires confidence, does not require any corroboration. However, in this case the statement of prosecutrix is duly corroborated by her mother, medical evidence and other evidences, collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, as detailed above. 25. Moreover in this case nothing has come on the record that either prosecutrix or her family was having enmity with the accused or family of the accused. Family of prosecutrix and family of accused used to reside in the same locality. Hence, Panchyats of community were also held. Hence, there is nothing as to why prosecutrix or family of prosecutrix should have involved the accused falsely in this case. In normal circumstances, no parent would involve an unmarried girl falsely in this type of case as future of the unmarried girl is also involved and reputation and honour of the family is also involved. 26. Honble Apex Court in Gurmit Singhs case (supra) made the following observations, which is material for just decision of the case:- "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 of 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. 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 levelled 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 at 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 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. 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 subject 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. In State of Maharashtra V/s. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, 1990(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 411 : JT 1990(1) SC 61 : 1990 (1) SCC 550, Ahmadi, J. (as the Lord Chief Justice then was) speaking for the Bench summarised the position in the following words : `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 alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled 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 Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. 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 Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reasons 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 shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose 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." 27. As already discussed above, if deposition of prosecutrix and her mother is analysed in the light of aforementioned observations of Honble Apex Court, there is no hesitation in the mind of this Court that the depositions of prosecutrix and her mother are believable and trustworthy. 28. So far as deposition of medical officer, who examined the prosecutrix, that possibility of the prosecutrix being habitual to sexual intercourse can not be ruled out, is concerned, deposition of prosecutrix cannot be disbelieved on this ground as well. The Medical Officer has also deposed that possibility of rape also could not be ruled out. She has also deposed that hymen admitted two fingers tightly and one finger loosely. No injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix as firstly she was examined after five days of occurrence and moreover as per deposition, she was semi-conscious as she was smelled something by the accused making her semi-conscious and act of sexual intercourse was performed while she was semi-conscious and hence, she could not possibly give physical assistance. 29. No injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix as firstly she was examined after five days of occurrence and moreover as per deposition, she was semi-conscious as she was smelled something by the accused making her semi-conscious and act of sexual intercourse was performed while she was semi-conscious and hence, she could not possibly give physical assistance. 29. Moreover even if it is taken that prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse even before this occurrence, it cannot be said that accused was having right to kidnap her and to commit sexual intercourse with her without her consent and against her will. Observations of Honble Apex court in Gurmit Singhs case (supra) on the point is also relevant, which reads as under: "16.... Even in cases, unlike the present case, where there is some acceptable material on the record to show that the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse, no such inference like the victim being a girl of `loose moral character is permissible to be drawn from the circumstance alone. Even if the prosecutrix, in a given case, has been promiscuous in her sexual behaviour earlier, she has a right to refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse to anyone and everyone because she is not a vulnerable object or prey for being sexually assaulted by anyone and everyone. No stigma, like the one as cast in the present case, should be cast against such a witness by the courts, for after all it is the accused and not the victim of sex crime who is on trial in the Court." 30. So far as age of prosecutrix is concerned, she has given her age as 14 years at the time of getting her statement recorded before the Investigating Officer. She has also given her age as 14 years at the time of her examination by the Medical Officer. She has given her age as 14-1/2 years when she was examined in the Court. Her mother, who is the best witness regarding the age of prosecutrix has also given her age as 14-1/2 years. Prosecutrix is illiterate. She has not gone to any school. She belongs to illiterate rustic family. She belongs to labour class. Mother of the prosecutrix has deposed that she did not get her date of birth recorded in any municipal record or anganwari. Prosecutrix is illiterate. She has not gone to any school. She belongs to illiterate rustic family. She belongs to labour class. Mother of the prosecutrix has deposed that she did not get her date of birth recorded in any municipal record or anganwari. The only other evidence which the prosecution could collect regarding the age was to get her radiologically examined for determination of her age, however, the said course was not adopted by the Investigating Officer. Hence, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the fact that radiological examination for determining the age was not got conducted by the Investigating Officer, no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of the mother of the prosecutrix that she was about 14 years at the time of the said offence. Moreover other material evidence regarding the age of prosecutrix which has come on the record is ration card, Ex. P15. It has been deposed by Ram Kumar, Sub Inspector, DW1, that the said ration card was issued in the year 1998 and in the said ration card age of prosecutrix has been mentioned as 9 years, hence she was about 15 years of age on the date of this occurrence, as per ration card. So far as form for issuing another ration card in the year 2004 is concerned, it has been deposed by mother of prosecution that the same does not contain photograph of her family. The said form could not be proved to have been given by father of prosecutrix. Moreover a perusal of the form mark `B also shows that age of Banarsi Dass, father of prosecutrix has been mentioned as 35 years and age of her mother has been mentioned as 31 years, whereas the age of prosecutrix has been mentioned as 20 years, which cannot be correct as her mother cannot conceive just at the age of 11 years. Moreover there was no dispute regarding age of prosecutrix in the year 1998, when earlier ration card was issued. Age as recorded in the ration card of the year 1998 find corroboration from the deposition of mother of prosecutrix. Hence, from the available evidence on the record, it can be said that prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age on the day of occurrence. 31. Age as recorded in the ration card of the year 1998 find corroboration from the deposition of mother of prosecutrix. Hence, from the available evidence on the record, it can be said that prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age on the day of occurrence. 31. Moreover in this case it is not the plea of the accused that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. Rather it is a case of total denial of the occurrence on the part of the accused. 32. As a result of aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that prosecutrix has made a truthful statement. Deposition of prosecutrix also finds corroboration from her mother as well as from medical evidence and the other evidence collected by the prosecution during investigation. Prosecution has been able to establish the case against the appellant-accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in convicting the appellant-accused. 33. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, as already discussed above, the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age on the date of occurrence. Hence accused has been held guilty of committing rape upon a minor girl for which minimum imprisonment has been provided under the law as seven years of rigorous imprisonment. 34. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that he has been facing trial for the last about five year and hence a lenient view in the quantum of sentence may be taken. 35. However, in this case accused was of 20 years of age at the time of the occurrence, whereas the prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age. They used to reside in the same locality. Hence, heinous crime has been committed by the accused by kidnapping the prosecutrix from her house during night and committing rape upon her by smelling something to her. 36. Hence, merely on the ground that he has been facing trial for the last five years, it cannot be said that any leniency in the quantum of sentence in this case is called for. Learned trial Court has rightly sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, which is the minimum sentence, prescribed for the offence. 37. In view of the above discussion, there is not merit in the appeal. Learned trial Court has rightly sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, which is the minimum sentence, prescribed for the offence. 37. In view of the above discussion, there is not merit in the appeal. The same is, hereby, dismissed.