Judgment KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment rendered by additional Sessions Judge, Karnal whereby appellant was found guilty of offence under Sec.376 IPC. The trial Court had sentenced appellant Ram Kumar to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Appellant Ram Kumar son of Sat Pal was named as accused in case fir No.99 dated 19.3.1996 registered at Police Station Gharaunda under Section 376 IPC. 3. On 19.3.1996, ASI Raj Singh along with Constable Satish kumar was present near Bus Stand, Gharaunda, when prosecutrix along with one Ved Singh and his wife Kasturi Devi met him. Statement of prosecutrix Ex. PM was recorded. ASI Raj Singh appended endorsement ex. PM/1 and sent the same for registration of the FIR. On the basis of the statement made by the prosecutrix, formal FIR Ex. PM/2 was recorded. In her statement, the prosecutrix stated that she is aged 15/16 years. She is resident of B. B. C. Brick-kiln, Faridpur where she used to reside with her parents who were working as labourers. On 19.3.1996 at about 5.00 A. M. , prosecutrix had gone to the fields near the brick-kiln to ease herself. At that time, the accused who is also working at the brick-kiln appeared there, gagged her mouth and dragged her to the compound of brick-kiln. There accused-appellant broke the string of the salwar of the prosecutrix and forcibly raped her. The accused had gagged her mouth but due to resistance hand of the accused was removed and on the noise raised by the prosecutrix, one Mukesh was attracted at the spot. The accused ran away from the spot. Mukesh brought the prosecutrix to her hut, where she along with her parents was going to lodge the report when police met her. Statement of the prosecutrix Ex. PF was recorded by Judicial Magistrate Ist class under Sec.164 Cr. P. C. . Thereafter, report under Sec.173 Cr. P. C. was submitted and the appellant was charged by the Court of Additional sessions Judge, Karnal. The charge stated that on 19.3.1996 in the area of faridpur, accused had committed rape upon the prosecutrix without her consent and committed offence under Sec.376 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution examined Dr. P. C. was submitted and the appellant was charged by the Court of Additional sessions Judge, Karnal. The charge stated that on 19.3.1996 in the area of faridpur, accused had committed rape upon the prosecutrix without her consent and committed offence under Sec.376 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution examined Dr. H. O. Bhatia as PW1. This witness on 21.3.1996 at 4.00 P. M. medico legally examined accused Ram Kumar, aged 18 years and stated that there was nothing to suggest that accused was unfit to commit sexual intercourse. 5. Dr. G. S. ARORA appeared as PW2, he had conducted radiological examination/ossification test of the prosecutrix to determine her age. According to his opinion, the age of prosecutrix was between 161/2 to 17 years. In cross-examination, this witness stated that there could be variation of 3 years of age on either side. 6. Prosecutrix was examined on 19.3.1996 by Dr. Usha Khanna PW6. In her testimony, this witness had made following observations:- "general examination: She was well built, well nourished girl of about 17 years age came walking for examination. She was fully conscious, gait was normal. Pulse 80/80 per minute, BP 110/70 MMHG, age of monarch 3 years back. Date of last menstrual period 3 days back i. e.17-3-96. There was no mark of injury on any part of the body i. e. thighs, perineum, or breast. Secondary sex character:- breast well developed, pubic hair and auxiliary hair present. Examination of genitalia:- External genitalia well developed, pubic hair present, no matting seen, no abnormal secretion seen, blood stained discharge present, hymen was absent, vagina admitted two fingers very easily. Old hymen tags was present. Two vaginal swabs taken and two slides of vaginal semen prepared and sealed, pubic hair sealed separately. She was referred to radiologist, G. H. Karnal for X-ray to ascertain her age. She was brought by her father and police and was examined at 4-45 p. m. on 19-3-96. " 7 Ms. SHALINI Singh, Judicial Magistrate IInd Class appeared as PW3. She stated that on application Ex. PE submitted by the Investigating Agency, she recorded statement of the prosecutrix under Sec.164 Cr. P. C. The statement was exhibited as Ex. PF. 8. Hc Jai Bhagwan PW4 and HC Azad Singh PW5 tendered their affidavits exs. PG and PH respectively to prove link evidence. She stated that on application Ex. PE submitted by the Investigating Agency, she recorded statement of the prosecutrix under Sec.164 Cr. P. C. The statement was exhibited as Ex. PF. 8. Hc Jai Bhagwan PW4 and HC Azad Singh PW5 tendered their affidavits exs. PG and PH respectively to prove link evidence. Sultan Singh, Patwari, Halqa faridpur PW7 prepared scaled site plan of the spot Ex. PL. 9. Prosecutrix appeared as PW8. Her statement in examination- in-chief was not different than what was stated in her statement Ex. PM. The cross-examination of this witness has been read in Court by Mr. Arvind Singh, counsel for the appellant. This witness stated that she saw the accused for the first time when she started working at the brick-kiln. She had not studied in any school. Her name was not entered in the ration card. The string of her salwar was loose. The accused had put his hand on her mouth and had not held her arms. She could not bite the hand of the accused as her mouth was closed. She stated that when accused committed rape, blood had fallen on her salwar which she washed and removed the blood stains. She further stated that at the time of her deposition, she was married. 10. Smt. KASTURI Devi mother of the prosecutrix appeared as PW9 and corroborated the version of the prosecutrix. She stated that prosecutrix had relayed the occurrence to her. 11. Asi Raj Singh PW10 proved statement Ex. PM made by the prosecutrix, endorsement made thereon, registration of the case and various other aspects of the investigation. 12. Statement of the accused was recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. and all incriminating circumstances were put to him. The same were denied and the appellant pleaded false implication and stated that for preparing bricks, he used to charge less labour charges and on this ground father of the prosecutrix was offended. He told the accused to charge higher labour charges, which was not accepted by the accused, thus, he was falsely implicated. No evidence was led in defence. 13. Mr. ARVIND Singh, counsel for the appellant has stated that no mark of injury has been found on the person of prosecutrix. There is no injury on her body or on her private parts. The prosecutrix had offered no resistance, therefore, it is a case of consent. No evidence was led in defence. 13. Mr. ARVIND Singh, counsel for the appellant has stated that no mark of injury has been found on the person of prosecutrix. There is no injury on her body or on her private parts. The prosecutrix had offered no resistance, therefore, it is a case of consent. It is further stated that even PW9 Kasturi devi, mother of the accused has admitted that there was no mark or injury on the body of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix in cross- examination stated that she had suffered injury on her back on touching the ground. According to Arvind singh, this is a blemish in the testimony of prosecutrix, as no injury was found in the medical evidence. Thus, medical evidence contradicts the ocular version of the prosecutrix. Counsel has further submitted that as per statement ex. PM recorded at the instance of the prosecutrix, on the basis of which FIR ex. PM/2 was recorded and also in the deposition of the prosecutrix in Court, mukesh was attracted at the spot and the accused fled away from the spot when mukesh reached there. It is stated that Mukesh has not been examined. He has been purposely withheld by the prosecution. Therefore, adverse inference should be drawn. It is further submitted that the hymen was absent. Old hymen tag was present. Vagina admitted two fingers very easily and the doctor had opined that the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse. It is submitted that at the time of medico legal examination, the prosecutrix gave her age as 17 years. After medical examination, doctor had observed that prosecutrix was conscious and was having normal gait, therefore, counsel submit that the statement made by the prosecutrix that at the time of rape, there was bleeding, is not borne from the medical evidence. Counsel further submitted that this Court should take into consideration that at the time of occurrence, appellant was young stout boy of 18 years. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon Motha Singh and another V/s. State of Punjab, 2008 (2)R. C. R. (Criminal) 160 to state that this Court should take into consideration that there was no external or internal injury and the prosecutrix was habitual of having sexual intercourse. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon Motha Singh and another V/s. State of Punjab, 2008 (2)R. C. R. (Criminal) 160 to state that this Court should take into consideration that there was no external or internal injury and the prosecutrix was habitual of having sexual intercourse. Further reliance has been placed on Som Nath V/s. State of Punjab, 2008 (3) R. C. C. (Criminal) 510 where age of the prosecutrix was held more than 16 years and no injury was found, therefore, acquittal was recorded. 14. Mr. DEEPAK Jindal, Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State has submitted that testimony of the complainant inspires confidence. I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by Mr. Arvind Singh, counsel for the appellant. All arguments are liable to be rejected for the following reasons: 15. In the present case, occurrence had taken place on 19.3.1996 at 5.00 A. M. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded on the same day at 4.10 p. M. . Case was registered at 4.25 P. M. . In the present case, FIR has been promptly lodged and contain spontaneous version. Prosecutrix has immediately relayed the entire occurrence to her mother and accompanied by her approached the police officer. The very fact that prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse, give no right to the appellant to commit offence of rape. In statement under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. a feeble attempt has been made by the appellant to state that since the appellant was charging less labour charges, therefore, he was falsely involved. This is a frivolous defence to be believed. No body will put reputation of the family and of prosecutrix at stake for this frivolous reason. As stated by the counsel, the appellant was 18 years young stout man. He gagged mouth of the prosecutrix, opened the salwar and committed rape forcibly. Mukesh was attracted on the spot, therefore, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. This explains as to why no injury was suffered by the prosecutrix. Further more non examination of Mukesh is not fatal, as testimony of prosecutrix inspire confidence, is reliable and free from blemish of any contradiction, discrepancy and improvement. A witness who is reliable, require no corroboration. Prosecutrix was subjected to searching cross-examination. Defence failed to make any gain. Both the judgments relied upon by counsel for the appellants are distinguishable on facts. A witness who is reliable, require no corroboration. Prosecutrix was subjected to searching cross-examination. Defence failed to make any gain. Both the judgments relied upon by counsel for the appellants are distinguishable on facts. In case of Som Naths case (supra) sexual activity between the prosecutrix and the accused continued for 11/2 months. The prosecutrix also became pregnant. The accused used to visit the house of the prosecutrix after every two days. Similarly, the judgment in Motha Singhs case (supra) is of no help to the present appellant. There the prosecutrix remained in the company of accused for a period of 9 days. The place where prosecutrix remained with the accused was visited by many persons. For 9 days, she had made no attempt to disclose the fact of rape of any body. Therefore, these two judgments are of no help to the appellant as in the present case immediately after the rape the prosecutrix made grievance and lodged the FIR. 16. At this stage, counsel for the appellant has prayed that reduction in the sentence be granted taking into consideration the protracted trial. Reliance has been placed on State of Chhattisgarh V/s. Lekhram, 2006 (2) R. C. R. (Criminal) 475 and Balkar Singh V/s. State of Haryana, 2007 (4) R. C. R. (Criminal)597. These two judgments are also not attracted on facts of the cases. In both the judgments relied by counsel for the appellant, Court had held that prosecutrix was consenting party but was less than 16 years of age and had granted the benefit of reduction in sentence. In the present case, prosecutrix was more than 17 years of age and from the facts, argument of consent propounded has not been accepted. Therefore, prayer for reduction in sentence cannot be considered. As a result of above discussion, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.