Vinod Prasad, J. - Challenge in this appeal by the appellant accused Shamiullah is to the judgment 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 Jagannath-pur, 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 housp 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 he nouth 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, district Kaushambi, PW 6, com­menced the investigation of the crime, copied the chik FIR and GD entry, interro­gated the victim and the informant and 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, district Kaushambi, PW 6, com­menced the investigation of the crime, copied the chik FIR and GD entry, interro­gated the victim and the informant and recorded their statements. Arriving at the spot and conducting spot inspection Cp. PW6, prepared the site plan Ext. Ka 8 and thereafter penned down the statements of Smt. Kalpati, victim's mother, and those of 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 C.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 epi-condyle 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 epi-condyle 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 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 laboratory, 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, (3D)/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 PW6. 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 Mohammad' pur Painsa. He has also proved his signa­ture on the recovery memo of the under wear of his daughter. He has proved his written report as Ext Ka 1 which he had got scribed at Mohammad' pur Painsa. He has also proved his signa­ture on the recovery memo of the under wear of his daughter. He had 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 a 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 enemiry 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 later 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 later 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 doctor? formal witnesses. Senior radiologists Dr. V.K Sahu PW3 and Dr. Usha Singh PW5, had evidenced and proved their X-ray report (, txt Ka 3), and the medical examination report Ext. Ka 6 and Ext. Ka 7, and have confirmed their findings already mentioned 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 GD 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 judgment and order, as is already men­tioned above, hence this appeal questioning the sustainability of the said judgment. 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, although 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 leveled against him and his conviction and sen­tence be set aside. 11. Per contra, 'learned AGA submits that the impugned judgment 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 ostraciza-tion 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, AIR 2006 SC 1267 = 2006 (40) AIC 65 (SC) = 2006 (55) ACC 314 (SC) 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, AIR 2006 SC 1267 = 2006 (40) AIC 65 (SC) = 2006 (55) ACC 314 (SC) 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 Bodhisattiva Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 922 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. 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 categorical 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 recofded 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 replied convincingly. No doubt, there are natural aberrations and embellishments in her description of sexual act and some contradictions has creeped in her evidence, but they were bound to occur, because ob­servations and memory of an adolescent of 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 cross examined in bits and pieces on many 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. Additionally, victim's evidence finds it's corroboration in the serologist report, Ext. 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 money, 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 lodged without any delay, which has been ex­plained 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 Eajoo and others v. State of M.P., 2009 (64) ACC 672 (SC) 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 of that decision as are referred to in para 2 of the said judgment by the Apex Court are not in consonance with the facts of the present appeal. Here, there was no reason for the victim, a young girl of 14 years of age, to cook up an false story and narrate it to her mother and then to her father to blemish her own self. Serologist report es­tablishes her allegations in full. 17. Here, there was no reason for the victim, a young girl of 14 years of age, to cook up an false story and narrate it to her mother and then to her father to blemish her own self. Serologist report es­tablishes her allegations in full. 17. In Dinesh @ Budha v. State of Ra-jasthan, AIR 2006 SC 1267 = 2006 (40) AIC 65 (SC) = 2006 (55) ACC 314 (SC) 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 cor-roboration 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 self-inflicted, 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 Ramestrwar v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54 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., AIR 2006 SC 2214 = 2006 (42) AIC 34 (SC) = 2006 (55) ACC 556 (SC) 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. 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. 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, AIR 2005 SC 222 = 2005 (51) ACC 179 (SC) = 2005 (25) AIC 369 (SC) 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 Serolo-gist 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. 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. 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 judgment 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.