JUDGMENT VINOD PRASAD, J.-Challenge in this appeal by the appellant accused Shamiullah is to the judgement and order of his convictions under sections 376/506 IPC and imposed sentences of 7 years RI with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months further imprisonment on the first score, and one year RI with fine of Rs. two thousand and in default of payment of fine to under go further two months imprisonment on the second count, with additional direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently, recorded by Additional Session's Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, district Kaushambi in S.T. No. 279 of 2003, State versus Shami Ullah, under sections 376/506 IPC and section 3(1) (xii) SC/ST Act, P.s. Mohammadpur Paisa, District Kaushambi. 2. Background facts of the appeal are that victim, PW2, aged about 14 years, is the daughter of informant Mohan agriculturist, PW1, resident of village Jagannathpur, PS Mohammadpur Paisa, district Kaushambi with the appellant as her co villager. On the unfortunate day 23.12.2001 at 5 p.m., when the victim PW2, was returning to her house from the guava grove of Mian Baba, and reached near the house of the appellant, she was engaged in a conversation by the appellant who then took her to his fodder room, where he outraged her modesty by gagging her month from a piece of cloth and intimidating her with life, when she attempted to raise alarm. On her coming back to her house, victim divulged the faux pas to her mother, and later on to the informant father Mohan, PW1, on his return after irrigating his field. Informant PW1 got a written report, Ext. Ka 1, scribed by Bachchi Lal and then lodged it at police station Mohammadpur Paisa, following day of the incident on 24.12.2001 at 4.15 p.m. measuring a distance of 6 km from his village. Ram Bahadur Yadav, HCP, PW 4, registered the crime, prepared the chik FIR, Ext. Ka 4 and the relevant GD entry Ext. Ka 5. An attir (underwear) of the victim was also seized by him and it's recovery memo Ext. Ka 2 was also prepared. 3. Banwari Lal, Circle Officer, Sirathu, distnct Kaushambi, PW 6, commenced the investigation of the crime copied the chik FIR and GO entry, interr gated the victim and the informant an recorded their statements. Ka 5. An attir (underwear) of the victim was also seized by him and it's recovery memo Ext. Ka 2 was also prepared. 3. Banwari Lal, Circle Officer, Sirathu, distnct Kaushambi, PW 6, commenced the investigation of the crime copied the chik FIR and GO entry, interr gated the victim and the informant an recorded their statements. Arriving at the spot arid conducting spot inspection C.P. PW6, prepared the site plan Ext. 'Ka 8 an thereafter penned down the statements of Smt. Kalpati, victim's mother, and those Indra Pal and Rakesh, two witnesses of attir seizure memo. PW6, thereafter copied injury report and X-ray report of the victim, and then copied 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim in the case diary. Investigating Officer had also sent for serologist examination the under wear of the victim, which report by the serologist is Ext. Ka 10. Prima facie offences being disclosed against the appellant accused, that the e.o. Investigating Officer, charge sheeted the appellant Vide his report/charge sheet, Ext. Ka 9 dated 16.1.2002. Medical examination of the victim was done at district Hospital Allahabad, by Dr. Usha Singh, PW5, on 25.12.2004 at 11.40 a.m, vide Ext. Ka 6, who was brought to her by Const. Pyare Lal. In general examination doctor found her teeth 7+7/7+7, weight 38 kg and height 5-1/2, breasts developed, pubic and axillary hair scanty, and no mark of injury over any part of her body. 4. On internal examination doctor noted no mark of injury or blood stains on the private part of the victim, whose vaginal smear slid was prepared and sent for pathological examination to MLN Hospital for noting presence of spermatozoa. Insertion of two fingers was made easy. Uterus was of normal size with no pain and, tenderness present in it. Mensturation had not occurred. Doctor also advised for X-ray of wrist, elbow and knee joints and reserved her final opinion to be given after those test reports. Pathologist report dated 27.12.2001 indicated that no spermatozoa was detected in the vaginal smear of the victim where as Radiologist report dated 26.12.2001(Ext. Ka 3) indicated that Radius and Ulna Bones of the victim were not united (fused), the epiphysis of medial epiondyle head of 'Radius' and old cranor process of ulna bones have not completely united with their' respective shafts. Ka 3) indicated that Radius and Ulna Bones of the victim were not united (fused), the epiphysis of medial epiondyle head of 'Radius' and old cranor process of ulna bones have not completely united with their' respective shafts. The epiphysis of lower end of femer and upper I end of Tibia and Fibula bones have not , completely united' with their respective' shafts. According to the supplementary report Ext. Ka 7, by the doctor PW 5, based on Radiologists and Pathologist reports, victim was 'found to be a minor aged about 14 years, however no definite opinion about rape could be given by her. 5. Serologist report 'by Forensic science labodftory, Lucknow, dated 15.5.2002, Ext. Ka 10, indicated that on the underwear of the victim, semen and human• sperm, both were found. Civil Judge, (30)/ A3M, Kaushambi, took cognizance of the offence on the basis of charge sheet, Ext. ka 9 and summoned the accused appellant on 20.1.2002 and thereafter finding his case triable by Court of Session's, committed it on 6.10.2003 and resultantly before the Session's Court S.T. No. 279 of 2003, State v. Samiullah was registered against the accused appellant. Additional Session's Judge, Kaushambi, charged the accused appellant for offences under sections 376, 506 I.P.C. and 3 (1) (xii) SC/ST Act, which charges were abjured' by the accused appellant hence trial proceeded against him. 6. In an effort to cement appellant's guilt prosecution examined six witnesses in all, out of whom Mohan informant PW 1 and Victim, PW 2 were the fact witnesses. Rest of the formal witnesses included Senior Radiologist Dr. V.K. Sahu PW3, HCP Ram Bahadur Yadav, PW4, Dr. Usha Singh, PW5, and C.O. Banwari Lal, Investigating Officer PW 6. PW1 informant Mohan narrated his FIR allegations during his examination in the Court and deposed further that he had returned to his house after an hour of the incident and victim was 14 years of age at that time and he had gone to the police station next day because of the falling of night. He has proved his written report as Ext Ka 1 which he had got scribed at Mohammadpur Painsa. He has also proved his signature on the recovery memo of the under wear of his daughter. He held. He has proved his written report as Ext Ka 1 which he had got scribed at Mohammadpur Painsa. He has also proved his signature on the recovery memo of the under wear of his daughter. He held. also testified that the victim was sent for her medical examination to Allahabad accompanied by a constable, where she was medically examined and her X-ray was done on the subsequent day. This witness was subjected to very lengthy cross examination which is woefully pathetic. Majore portion of it centers round developing some or the other unappealing reasons for him to falsely implicate the appellant on a false charge of rape. It was suggested firstly that to get financial aid from the government that he had implicated the appellant, then on the caste line the suggestion was taken and then it was endevoured that he had falsely implicated the appellant because of one Ishtiaq Ahmad, grand son of Mian Baba, whose guava grove victim was guarding. It was also suggested to him that because of saw machine enemity with the appellant and Istiaq Ahmad because appellant had complained about sawing of green woods by Istiaq Ahmad and had got it seized by the DFO, that the informant has falsely implicated the appellant. PW 1 further evidenced that he was irrigating his wheat field and at the time of the incident the members of appellant's house were at their fields. He had further deposed that he had gone to the police station on a jeep of village Pradhan, who was a Muslim. He has denied categorically the suggestion that victim was never subjected to any rape by the appellant. 7. PW2, victim, in her deposition before the Court narrated the incident described in the FIR and testified that appellant had dragged her inside his fodder room where he had raped her against her consent on gun point by gagging her mouth and threatening her entire family with life. She also narrated that at the time of the incident she was wearing frock and an underwear. She narrated the incident to her mother on her return to her house and laser on the same was also divulged to the informant after his return from the field. She has also testified that her 164 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded by a Magistrate. She narrated the incident to her mother on her return to her house and laser on the same was also divulged to the informant after his return from the field. She has also testified that her 164 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded by a Magistrate. On being cross examined in bits and pieces at the interval of many days, she deposed that she is the youngest of the three sisters and she had gone to guard guava grove and after the incident she could move with difficulty. She confirmed informant's version of irrigating his field at the time of the incident. She .further evidenced that the house of accused is at a distance of three bighas from her house She showed her ignorance regarding map of appellant's house as she was dragged inside the room straight way. There 'are some embellishment in her statement regarding sustaining of some abrasions in dragging and actual raptus carnal cognovite and oozing out of blood. She has further disclosed that she was undressed and thereafter sexually molested. She has further deposed that after her returned to her house she had changed her cloths and had worn sari and petticot. She further testified that she had not washed her under wear but had washed her rest of attires next day morning when she had bathed herself. She had gone to the police station after bathing. She had accepted that she had received some money from the government but denied the defence suggestion that she was not ravished of her prestige and that no such incident as narrated by her ever took place and she had falsely implicated accused appellant because of rapacity under pressure of leader because of harbingered enemity. 8. The two doctors formal witnesses. Senior radiologists Dr. V.K Sahu PW3 and Dr. Usha Singh PW5, had evidenced and proved their X-ray report (Ext Ka 3), and the medical examination report Ext. Ka 6 and Ext. Ka 7, and have confirmed their findings already mentionea above and hence, for the sake of brevity, the same are not being repeated here. PW 5 had testified that the victim was 14 years of age and she has denied the suggestion that she has reduced the age of the victim by five years. There is also a serologist report dated 15.5 2002, Ext. PW 5 had testified that the victim was 14 years of age and she has denied the suggestion that she has reduced the age of the victim by five years. There is also a serologist report dated 15.5 2002, Ext. Ka 10, which indicates that human semen and sperm were found on the underwear of the victim alleged to have been worn by her at the time of the incident. HCP, Ram Bahadur (PW4) has proved registration of case and preparation of Chik FIR, Ext. Ka 4 and GO entry Ext. Ka 5. He has also proved siezure memo of under wear as Ext. Ka 2. He has further disclosed that the victim was sent for medical examination in company of a femal constable. Investigating officer Banwari Lal, PW 6 testified various investigatory steps taken by him. He has further deposed that in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., victim had stated gagging of her mouth by the accused. This witness has confirmed some of the contradictions and omissions occurred in the testimony of the victim. Major part of his cross examination is regarding absence of blood and sperm on the victim's corpus and her drappers. 9. Trial Judge found the case of the prosecution proved to the hilt and guilt of the appellant established beyond any shadow of doubt, consequently it convicted and sentenced him by the impugned judgement and order, as is already mentioned above, hence this appeal questioning the sustainability of the said judgement. I have heard Sri A.B. Saran learned senior Counsel in support of this appeal and Sri Patanjali Misra, learned AGA in opposition. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant threw challenge to the conviction and sentence of the appellant by canvassing that the whole prosecution story is false and bogus and no rape was committed upon the victim. He submitted that medical report interdict the charge of rape and the appellant has been falsely implicated to settle the scores of rivalry. Learned senior Counsel further harangued that victim is not a reliable witness and her testimony does not inspire any confidence at all and therefore it is very unsafe to act on her testimony. Neither- her conduct is natural nor the medical report of internal examination establish the framed charges against the appellant. Learned senior Counsel further harangued that victim is not a reliable witness and her testimony does not inspire any confidence at all and therefore it is very unsafe to act on her testimony. Neither- her conduct is natural nor the medical report of internal examination establish the framed charges against the appellant. No hue and cry was raised by the victim and there was no external mark of injury detected on her person, though she has stated that she was dragged pulling from the hand and she had sustained abrasions. It was submitted that probably for the lust of economic gains that the appellant was roped in this false charge and the present crime was never committed .It was further argued that the FIR was lodged belatedly with false allegations. Lastly, it was concluded by contending that the instant appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the charges levelled against him and his conviction and sentence be set aside. 11. Per contra," learned AGA submits that the impugned judgement is sustainable and the guilt of the appellants is proved beyond doubt and therefore instant appeal by the appellant sans merit and be dismissed. 12. I have considered the advanced submissions and have perused the trial Court record as well as file of this appeal. Rape is not only a social crime but is an ignominy for the victim and faux pas for the whole family. In our society, false accusation of rape by a damsel, who is not a trollop, risking her most esteemed honour and self prestige with further risk of ostracizalion or social spitness, still, is abhorred with temerity. Seldom such extreme steps are taken where a young girl anoint a false rape charge on her person, that too, by such. a rapist, who had no valentine or cupid connection with her. Countenancing such a contention that the victim has done so to settle a dispute, by her father, is so gibberish a submission that it deserves rejection without a further pondering thought. In the decision of Dinesh @ Budha v. State of Rajasthan,1 has observed thus: "6. Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a female. In the decision of Dinesh @ Budha v. State of Rajasthan,1 has observed thus: "6. Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity - it degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child or a minor, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. A rapist not only causes physical injuries but more indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman i.e. her dignity, honour, reputation and not the least her chastity. Rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman, it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys, as noted by this Court in Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty/ the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is a crime against basic human rights, and is also violative of the victim's most cherished of the Fundamental Rights, namely, the Right to Life contained in Article 21 of' the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). The Courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely.: A socially sensitized Judge, in our opinion, is a better statutory armour in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and provisos." 13. Present appeal is one such example. Victim, PW2, a young girl of 14 years is alleged to have been ravished physically by the appellant, when she was returning to her house after guarding a guava grove taken on lease by her informant father PW1. According to the prosecution allegations, both victim and the accused, were co villagers, which fact has not been thrown open to challenge by the accused hence identity of the appellant is not in doubt and has not been challenged as well by the appellant. This rules out a case of false identity. 14. The report by the doctor regarding age of the victim is well established as she was found to be a minor aged about 14 years. Her physical examination with ossification test materials farther such an opinion. This rules out a case of false identity. 14. The report by the doctor regarding age of the victim is well established as she was found to be a minor aged about 14 years. Her physical examination with ossification test materials farther such an opinion. Learned Counsel for the appellant also did not question' the deposition of doctor Usha Singh, where she is categoried in her statement that •the victim was only 14 years of age and has denied the defence suggestion that she was 19 years of age. Victim also disclosed her age to be 18 years at the time of her testimony in the Trial Court, which was recorded four years after the incident and hence at the time' of the incident she must have been. 14 years of age. It is very significant to note that the accused did not seriously questioned the victim on .this aspect of the matter and her cross examination is woefully deficient in that respect. Attour, father PW 1, has also not been tested seriously, by the accused on the said aspect. In such\ background evidences it is not difficult to conclude that the victim was a minor at the time when she was deprived of her most precious honour. 15. Above view regarding age takes me to another important aspect of the appeal that once victim was a minor, her consent to Rapuit carnalitor cognovit, was of no consequence in judging the offence committed by the appellant. Albeit not much argument was advanced by Sri Saran on this aspect but by making submissions that the victim did not sustain any injury on her private• part and her person he has advanced two submissions firstly that it was a consent case and secondly that no rape was committed at all. In view of above discussion, the case of consent is an impossibility, moreso when there was no eye witness to the said indecent act and victim could have concealed it very conveniently, but she has not done so. The two counter productive arguments can not be coalesced to accept defence suggestion. 16. Turning towards another argument that the incident did not occur at all and both the facts witnesses are deposing falsely against the accused appellant, it is to be noted that both• PW 1 and PW 2 have supported their case well. The two counter productive arguments can not be coalesced to accept defence suggestion. 16. Turning towards another argument that the incident did not occur at all and both the facts witnesses are deposing falsely against the accused appellant, it is to be noted that both• PW 1 and PW 2 have supported their case well. Victim is the sole witness of actual outraging of her modesty. Why she will squatt on her own honour without any animous towards the appellant is impossible to perceive. To her it was suggested that to get the money and to settle her father's score that she has falsely implicated the appellant in this false case of rape. To say the least this is adding insult to injury. Victim categorically denied having any relation• with the accused. Both of them belonged to two different castes with out any thing in common. It was not suggested to her that she was having an affair with the accused. Residence of the two are also a part. There has been no love labour lost between them. Sri Saran also failed to bring any convincing reason for the victim to depose falsely against the appellant. The suggestion that for fiscal benefit she cooked up a false charge of ignominy ruining her self prestige is totally codswallop. PW2 victim was cross examined very minutely on details of intercourse, to which she has cc replied convincingly. No doubt, there are natural aberrations and embellishments in IT her description of sexual act and some to contradictions has creeped in her evidence, but they were bound to occur, because observations and memory of an adolescent of a 14 years after an interval of four ,years are bound to fade. Over and above, the record of the Trial Court reveals that victim was a cross examined in bits and pieces on many of dates after long intervals. This must have hampered her memory by efflux of time. Had she been a tutored witness, there would not have been such contradictions in her testimony in describing rape being committed on her. The natural contradictions makes her even more reliable and truthful witness, whose testimony is confidence inspiring. Omissions and contradictions in her depositions are not of such a degree as to whither out the entire prosecution version as was contended by learned Counsel for the appellant. The natural contradictions makes her even more reliable and truthful witness, whose testimony is confidence inspiring. Omissions and contradictions in her depositions are not of such a degree as to whither out the entire prosecution version as was contended by learned Counsel for the appellant. Additionally, victim's evidence finds it's corroboration in the serologist report, Ext. Ka 10, where on her underwear semen and spermatozoa were detected. Accused appellant has failed to question this report for it's genuineness and acceptability. If there was no rape, there would not have been any such report by an independent agency, having no animous with the appellant. There was no earthly reason for the victim and her father to concoct a false charge against the appellant. They could have got mane), even without naming the appellant as the culprit. Both father and daughter have stood the test of their cross examinations on the anvil of probability and I find them reliable and trustworthy witnesses. The second part of argument raised by appellant's Counsel is also therefore repelled. Turning towards delay in lodging of the FIR, I find that the same was lodge without any delay, which has been plained by cogent, sufficient and acceptable explanation. Now turning towards some of the decisions of the apex Court, I find that the decision relied upon by the appellant's Counsel reported in Rajoo and others v. State of M.P. is of no help to him . That was a case which had entirely different fact scenario all together in number of accused, in manner of happening of the incident, victim going with the accused on a scooter without rising any alarm etc. and more over that was a case of gang rape without any supporting medical evidence. The facts f that decision as are referred to in para 2 of the said judgement by the Apex Court are not in consonance with the facts of the resent appeal. Here, there was no reason, or the victim, a young girl of 14 years of age, to cook up an false story and narrate it o her mother and then to her father to lemish her own self. Serologist report establishes her allegations in full. 17. In Dinesh @ Budha v. State of Rajasthan, it has been observed by the Apex Court as follows: "11. Serologist report establishes her allegations in full. 17. In Dinesh @ Budha v. State of Rajasthan, it has been observed by the Apex Court as follows: "11. In the Indian Setting refusal to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society and when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light, there is inbuilt assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury, which is not shown or believed to be selfinflicted, is the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of sex offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. A woman or a girl who is raped is not an accomplice. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. The observations of Vivian Bose, J.in Rameshwar v. The State of Rajasthan/ were: "The rule, which according to the cases has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the judge...". 18. In Om Prakash v. State of U.P. Apex Court has observed thus: "13. It is settled law that the victim of sexual" assault is not treated as accomplice and as such, her evidence does not require corroboration from any other evidence including the evidence of a doctor. In a given case even if the doctor who examined the victim does not find sign of rape, it is no ground to disbelieve the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. In normal course a victim of sexual assault does not like to disclose such offence even before her family members much less before public or before the police. In a given case even if the doctor who examined the victim does not find sign of rape, it is no ground to disbelieve the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. In normal course a victim of sexual assault does not like to disclose such offence even before her family members much less before public or before the police. The Indian women has tendency to conceal such offence because it involves her prestige as well as prestige of her family. Only in few cases, the victim girl or the family members has courage to go before the police station and lodge a case. In the instant case the suggestion given on behalf of the defence that the victim has falsely implicated the accused does not appeal to reasoning. There was no apparent reason for a married woman to falsely implicate the accused after scatting her own prestige and honour." In yet another decision State of M.P. v. Balu,4 it has been held by the Supreme Court as follows: "The Trial Court, in our opinion, rightly rejected this contention of the respondent herein. The prosecution during the course of investigation had seized the clothes worn by the victim as well as the underwear worn by the respondent which" also on examination by the Serologist was found to contain blood which also supported the prosecution case that the respondent had sexual intercourse with the victim. PW2 who knew the respondent prior to the incident had no difficulty in identifying the respondent as the person who committed rape on her, also stated that the respondent had covered her mouth with a towel to prevent her from shouting for help. Having perused the evidence like the Trial Court, we also find no reasons to disbelieve her evidence. Hence, the so-called consent alternatively pleaded by the Counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted. The argument of non-consideration of the statement of the accused recorded under section 313, Cr.P.C. to the effect that there was animosity between the family of the victim and the accused is liable to be rejected because one of the defences of the accused is that there was consent on the part of the victim to have sex with him. These two stands being self-contradictory, cannot be accepted. 15. These two stands being self-contradictory, cannot be accepted. 15. Thus, having considered the material on record and having heard the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties, we find no merit in the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the Trial Court erroneously convicted the respondent." 19. No other argument was advanced by learned senior Counsel for the appellant in support if this appeal, which I find to be devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant as has been implanted by the Trial Court in the impugned judgement and order is hereby confirmed. Appellant is in jail. He shall remain in jail to serve out remaining part of his sentence. Let a copy of this judgment be certified to the Trial Court for it's intimation and further action.