JUDGMENT 1. - Having been convicted of offence under Section 376,366,366A IPC and for offence under Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/St (Prevention of Atrocities Act, the appellant has approached this court. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 13.08.2005, the office of the Superintendent, District Ajmer received a letter sent by Satyapal (RW.5) wherein he claimed that on 01.08.2005 around 8:00 PM his wife, Smt. Geeta (RW.4), had taken their daughter, Kumari Seema (P.W.1), to a Shiv Temple, near the Madar Gate at Ajmer. After coming out of the temple, his wife and their daughter were standing near thd Badri Sweetmeat shop. While they were standing there. Ganesh (the appellant before this Court) and one Santosh were standing near them. Their daughter went to a water hut (Paiyo). However, the child never came back. Therefore, his wife searched for the child. She found that both Ganesh and Santosh were missing from that area. He further alleged that on 02.02.2005, a girl called Jassi, who sells almonds and cashew nuts near the Post Office Ajmer, told them that if they were to go to the Lohar Basti, near the Alwar Gate, they would be able to find their daughter. Consequently, his wife went to the Lohar Basti. There, she was told at night a girl had come in their neighbourhood. But, the child is no longer there. She was also informed that Ganesh is also missing. He further claimed that on 02.08.2005, his wife went to the Police Station situated at Clock Tower for filing a report. However, she was told to go to Police Station Kotwali. When she went to the Police Station Kotwali, she was sent back to the Police Station Clock Tower ostensibly on the ground that her daughter had disappeared form the Madar Gate, which fell within the jurisdiction of Police Station Clock Tower. When she went back to the police station Clock Tower, she was told to report to the Police Station Madar Gate. Eventually, when she reached Police Station Madar Gate, the police refused to record the FIR and dismissed her. He further alleged that since 1997, one Arjun has been threatening that he will either kidnap his wife, or his daughter. When she went back to the police station Clock Tower, she was told to report to the Police Station Madar Gate. Eventually, when she reached Police Station Madar Gate, the police refused to record the FIR and dismissed her. He further alleged that since 1997, one Arjun has been threatening that he will either kidnap his wife, or his daughter. Furthermore, he claimed that on 05.08.2005, his wife had filed an application under Section 97 Cr.PC., for the production of their child, as she was conviced that Ganesh, Santosh and Arjun have Kidnapped their daughter and were illegally detaining her. His wife further apprehended that their daughter could be sold into the flesh trade. Upon this information, the learned Additional District Magistrate issued a search warrant against Ganesh and Santosh. The police informed the complainant that they will try to locate the child in the night of 5th August, 2005 and they should reach the police station on 6th August, 2005. They reported to the police station and went with the police party to Lohar Basti. Initially, the people of Lohar Basti fought with the complainant. But subsequently, told him that his daughter is being kept near the Railway Station, clock Tower, He further alleged that on 06.08.2005, around 11:00 AM, the child came back home. The child informed his wife that on 01.08.2005 when she had gone to the water hut, she had gone to ease herself. The child also told her mother that while she was easing herself, Ganesh had kidnapped her at the point of a knife. He forced her to have a cup of tea. After drinking the tea, she became unconscious. He took her to the Lohar Basti. When she became conscious in the morning of 2nd August, 2005, she found her clothes were missing; she realised that she had been ravished by Ganesh Lohar. She further claimed that Ganeshs sister, Smt. Kamla, got them a room. Even in the room, he forced her to have a cup of tea. She became unconscious; again she was ravished by him. She further told her mother that on 04.03.2005, a dispute arose between Ganesh and his sister Smt. Kamla. His sister told him to take the girl back to Ajmer. On Friday, she was placed on a train for sending her back to Ajmer. She became unconscious; again she was ravished by him. She further told her mother that on 04.03.2005, a dispute arose between Ganesh and his sister Smt. Kamla. His sister told him to take the girl back to Ajmer. On Friday, she was placed on a train for sending her back to Ajmer. On 05.08.2005, she stayed at the Railway Station in the night and came back home on 06.08.2005. Lastly, the complainant alleged that his daughter told her mother that four days prior to 01.08.2005, she had seen Ganesh talking to Arjun. She further told her mother that while she was in the custody of Ganesh, she had been ravished by him. 3. On the basis of the complaint, a FIR, FIR No.127/2005, was registered for offences under Section 366, 366A, 367 and 120B IPC. Eventually a charge-sheet was submitted for offence under Sections 366.366A and 376 IPC and for offence under Section 3 (1)(xii) of the SC/ST Act. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses, and submitted sixteen documents. On the other hand, the defence examined two witnesses, and submitted a few documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence , vide judgment dated 23.08.2007, the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer convicted the appellant for aforementioned offences and sentenced him as under:-For offence under Section 376 IPC, the appellant was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, and was further directed to undergo two years of simple imprisonment in default thereof. For offence under Section 366 IPC, he was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and was further directed to undergo one year of simple imprisonment in default thereof. For offence under Section 366A, he was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and was further directed to undergo one year of simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 3(1 )(xii) of SC/ST Act, he was sentenced to two years of simple imprisonment. It was further directed that the fine of Rs. 35,000/- shall be paid to the prosecutrix by way of compensation. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 4. Mr. 5,000/- and was further directed to undergo one year of simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 3(1 )(xii) of SC/ST Act, he was sentenced to two years of simple imprisonment. It was further directed that the fine of Rs. 35,000/- shall be paid to the prosecutrix by way of compensation. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 4. Mr. Ravi Kasliwal, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, the appellant has been implicated falsely in this case because Satyapal (PW.5), the father of the prosecutrix, owes him Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. In order to escape his liability of repaying the said loan amount, he has falsely implicated the appellant in the present case. Secondly, there has been inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR. According to Satyapal (RW.5), the prosecutrix had disappeared on 01.08.2005. However, the complaint was received by the office of the Superintendent on 13.08.2005. Thus, there is a delay of twelve days. The delay has not been explained by the prosecution. In order to support his contention that the inordinate delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution, the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of State of Rajasthan v. Dharamvir Singh, 2008 (2) Cr.P.C. (Raj). 1262 , State of Rajasthan v. Doonga, 2009 (2) RLR 640 and State of Rajasthan v. Gopi, 2009 (5) WLC (Raj.) 305 .Thirdly, Geeta (P.W.4), the mother of the prosecutrix, is an unreliable witness. As according to her, although she kept on searching for the child on 01.08.2005, she went to the railway station and slept there. According to the learned counsel, it is an abnormal conduct on the part of the mother. Moreover, although the mother had filed an application under Section 97 Cr.RC. before the Court, no explanation has been given either by the mother, Geeta (RW.4) or by the father, Satyapal (P.W.5) for not lodging a criminal complaint against the appellant in the Court. In order to support his contention that conviction should not be based on unreliable witnesses, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo v. State of Orissa, AIR 2003 SC 2136 . Forthly the testimony of the prosecutrix, Seema (RW.1) has been belied by the medical report (Ex.P/4). According to the medical evidence, the hymen of the prosecutrix was intact. Forthly the testimony of the prosecutrix, Seema (RW.1) has been belied by the medical report (Ex.P/4). According to the medical evidence, the hymen of the prosecutrix was intact. According to the learned counsel, in case she were subjected to rape that too, for two days the hymen would have been broken. Therefore, the allegation levelled by 8. prosecutrix that she has been ravished by the appellant Is patently false. Lastly, the appellant has been serving his sentence for the last seven years including remission. Therefore, his sentence should be reduced form ten years to seven years. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has; relied upon the case of Amar Chand v. The State of Rajasthan, 2007 (3) WLC (Raj.) 37 , 5. On the other hand, Mr. Javed Choudhary, the learned Public Prosecutor, has vehemently contended that it is inconceivable that the parents would jeopardise the reputation, the social standing, and the prospect of marriage of their daughter, in order to escape their liability of repaying a loan of Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. In case, Satyapal (RW.5) and Geeta (P.W.4) wanted to falsely implicate the appellant, they could have done so by implicating him for any other criminal offence, instead of an offence under Section 376 IPC. Secondly, both Geeta (P.W.4) and Satyapal (RW.5) have explained the delay in lodging of the FIR in great detail. Both Geeta and Satyapal belong to the poorer section of the society. Initially, Geeta had tried to locate her child. She was told that her child was seen at the Lohar Basti. She had gone there searching for her. Subsequently, she Went to one police station, she was referred to another police station, deflected back to the first police station, only to report the case before another police station. Hence, Geeta (P.W.4) has been running form pillar to post. But the police did not hear her pleas. Eventually, when she reached the Police Station at Madar Gate, she was turned out by the police without recording her report. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, it is a classic case of arrogance and apathy of the police towards the poorer section of the society. Therefore, the prosecution has explained the inordinate delay through cogent evidence. 6. Eventually, when she reached the Police Station at Madar Gate, she was turned out by the police without recording her report. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, it is a classic case of arrogance and apathy of the police towards the poorer section of the society. Therefore, the prosecution has explained the inordinate delay through cogent evidence. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has further contended that the offence of rape is a threat to the reputation and honour of the family; it also badly affects the life of the prosecutrix. For, because of the said offence the prosecutrix loses her social standing and her reputation. She, in turn, becomes the subject of peoples curiosity and ridicule. Therefore, the families are hesitant to reveal the commission of the alleged crime in the first instance. Instead they wait and watch, mull over the pros and cons, before approaching the police. Since, both Geeta (P.W.4) and Satyapal (P.W.5) are illiterate people, out of sheer necessity, Geeta Devi approached the Courts to file an application under Section 97 Cr.PC., against the appellant and his friends. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor has also pleaded that the human nature cannot be tested on a single yardstick. People tend to have different reactions to different situations. Therefore, even Geetas(P.W.4) sleeping at railway station on 01.08.2005, such a conduct cannot demolish the veracity of her testimony. Moreover, such a conduct does not make the prosecution case suspect. After all, she had been looking for the child, half of the night; tired, she may have decided to sleep at the railway station. He has further pleaded that Geeta and Satyapal are poor people, whose house may be too far for Geeta to cover the long distance at the dead of the night. He has further alleged that the testimony of the prosecutrix has not been shattered in the cross-examination. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that the law does not require that in case of rape, the hymen has to be broken. The law does not require that a deep penetration has to be made. In order to constitute an act as rape a mere penetration, event to a limited extent, is sufficient to bring the act within the definition of word "rape". The law does not require that a deep penetration has to be made. In order to constitute an act as rape a mere penetration, event to a limited extent, is sufficient to bring the act within the definition of word "rape". Therefore, merely because the hymen of the prosecutrix was discovered to be intact, it cannot lead to an irrevocable inference that the act of rape was not committed upon her. 9. Lastly, since it is a case of rape with a child, the Court should be sensitive while dealing with the sentence of the appellant. Society at large is shocked and dismayed at the proliferation of rape against minors; society at large demands that justice be done in such cases. Society at large demands that it be protected from pedophiles. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, since rape with a minor is a grave offence, the sentence should not be reduced from ten years to seven years as pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, examined the record, and perused the impugned judgment. 11. An allegation of rape is like a boomerang which returns to haunt both the victim and her family. In a conservative society like ours, an allegation of rape not only tarnishes the reputation of the family, but also destroys its honour and damages the future prospects of the victim. Both the victim and the family become the subject of peoples curiosity and ridicule. In the rural areas, and amongst the poor and illiterate, the family may be subjected to social ostracism. The victim, the girl or the women, not only faces a personal trauma, but also faces social stigma. She neither finds haven in her parental home, nor finds a refuge in the matrimonial home. At times, she is consigned to a personal purgatory. The trauma of facing an allegation that a child or a woman has been ravished is not only psychological, not only physically, but most importantly is an emotional trauma. The nightmare haunts the victim throughout her life. The agony dulls the victim throughout her life. It is worst when a child is subjected to such a trauma. The child is unable to understand the repercussions of the act. The nightmare haunts the victim throughout her life. The agony dulls the victim throughout her life. It is worst when a child is subjected to such a trauma. The child is unable to understand the repercussions of the act. By the time, the child grows up, as an adult, she lives with an ugly feeling; she feels a contempt of her own body which has been violated. The child continues to feel that the body is impure; yet she is entrapped in a body which has been polluted. 12. Ordinarily, the instinct of the parents is to protect the innocent child both from within the house and without. Every parent tries to protect the children from the harmful act of the world. The parents are well aware of the consequences of revealing to the world that their daughter has been ravished by a person. Thus, it is inconceivable that merely to escape the liability of having to pay Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant, Geeta (RW..4) and Satyapal (RW.5) would expose Seema (RW.1) to the grave consequences of alleging that Seema has been ravished by the appellant. After all, a reputation once tarnished cannot be restored to its pristine quality. For, reputation is built and not bought. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant is being falsely implicated in this case only because Geeta (RW.4) and Satyapal (RW.5) wanted to escape from their liability to repay the loan amount to the appellant, cannot be accepted. Therefore, the first contention is, hereby, rejected. 13. In a catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in the conservative Indian society, the families tend to hesitate in revealing the fact that a lady of the family has been ravished. Although, it is true that Geeta (RW.4) had filed an application under Section 97 Cr.P.C. for recovery of her child, at that time, since the child was not recovered, obviously she could not have alleged the offence of rape. Moreover, the fact that she had filed an application under Section 97 Cr.P.C., clearly proves the parents anxiety to recover the child from the alleged custody of the appellant and Arjun. Moreover, the fact that she had filed an application under Section 97 Cr.P.C., clearly proves the parents anxiety to recover the child from the alleged custody of the appellant and Arjun. Merely because the parents did not reach the police station to file a report for a missing person, but instead approached the Court for recovery of the missing person, it would neither cloud their bona fide intention, nor make their anxiety for the recovery of the child suspect. 14. Both Geeta (PW.4) and Satya Pal (RW.5) unequivocally explained the delay in lodging of the FIR. On 02.08.2005, Geeta went to the Police Station situated at Clock Tower for filing a report. However, she was told to go to Police Station Kotwali. When she went to the Police Station at Kotwali, she was sent back to the Police Station Clock Tower ostensibly on the ground that her daughter had disappeared from the Madar Gate. When she went back to the Police Station Clock Tower, she was told to report to the Police Station Madar Gate. When she eventually reached the Police Station Madar Gate, the police refused to record the FIR and dismissed her. Furthermore, on 05.08.2005, Geeta (P.W.4) has filed an application under Section 97 Cr.PC., for the production of their child, as she was convinced that Ganesh, Santosh and Arjun have kidnapped their daughter and illegally detained her. Upon this information, the learned Additional District Magistrate issued a search warrant against Ganesh and Santosh. The police searched for the child at Lohar Basti. Initially, the people of Lohar Basti fought with the complainant. But subsequently they told him that his daughter is being kept near the Railway Station, Clock Tower. The child returned on her own on 06.08.2005, around 11 oclock. 15. Thus, obviously, the parents were running from pillar to post for their child. However, the callous and apathetic police personnel refused to hear their pleas. In these circumstances, It is not surprising that an illiterate couple sought help of a lawyer and asked him to prepare a complaint which was sent to the concerned S.R. The letter sent by Satyapal (RW.5) was received by the office of Superintendent of police on 13.08.2005. Thus, the prosecution witnesses have cogently explained the inordinate delay in unambiguous terms. In these circumstances, It is not surprising that an illiterate couple sought help of a lawyer and asked him to prepare a complaint which was sent to the concerned S.R. The letter sent by Satyapal (RW.5) was received by the office of Superintendent of police on 13.08.2005. Thus, the prosecution witnesses have cogently explained the inordinate delay in unambiguous terms. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is an inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR. 16. The learned counsel has made much of the fact that Geeta (P.W.4) admits that on 01.08.2005, she searched for her minor child, and she had fallen asleep at the railway station. According to the learned counsel, it is unnatural for a mother to fall asleep when her child is missing. The mother was anxious about the safety of her child, the mother was poor and illiterate. She may have become physically and mentally exhausted after searching for her child for a few hours. Moreover, at times, urban centers are no longer safe for a woman to walk alone at the dead of the night. Therefore, the mother may have sought the refuge of the railway station - a crowded and constantly busy place. Merely because, Geeta (RW.4) had slept at the railway station on 01.08.2005, this fact by itself would not damage the veracity of her testimony. 17. A bare perusal of the testimony of the prosecutrix, Seema (RW.1) clearly reveals that she has narrated a consistent story with regard to the appellant. According to her, she was kidnapped by the appellant at the point of a knife. According to her, she was forced to have a cup of tea, due to which she became unconscious. According to her, when she woke up in Jodhpur, she found her clothes were missing; she was told by the appellant that he had ravished her. According to her, she was illegally confined and was again subjected to rape. After a fight with his sister, the appellant put her on a train for Ajmer. Although, it is true that according to the medical report (Ex.P/4), the hymen of the prosecutrix was intact, but even this piece of evidence would not dilute the testimony of the prosecutrix of its veracity. 18. Section 375 IPC defines the "rape" as under:- 375. After a fight with his sister, the appellant put her on a train for Ajmer. Although, it is true that according to the medical report (Ex.P/4), the hymen of the prosecutrix was intact, but even this piece of evidence would not dilute the testimony of the prosecutrix of its veracity. 18. Section 375 IPC defines the "rape" as under:- 375. Rape.-A man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:- First.-Against her will. Secondly.-Without her consent. Thirdly:- With her consent,when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt. Fourthly.- With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. Fifthly.- With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent. Sixthly.- With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. Explanation. Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.Exception.- Sexual intercourse by a .man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.] 19. A bare perusal of the said provision makes it abundantly clear that in order to constitute an act as "rape", mere penetration is sufficient. It is not a requirement of law that the penetration should be sufficient enough to break the hymen or that the sexual intercourse must end with an ejaculation. According to law, penetration, no matter how subtle or little, is sufficient to bring the case within the four corners of the definition of "rape" contained in Section 375 IPC. Hence, merely because the prosecutrixs hymen is intact would not lead to the inference that the prosecutrix was not subjected to a subtle penetration. Moreover, there is no reason for falsely implicating the appellant.. Furthermore, the site plan of the place of the incident has been made under the guidance of the prosecutrix. Hence, merely because the prosecutrixs hymen is intact would not lead to the inference that the prosecutrix was not subjected to a subtle penetration. Moreover, there is no reason for falsely implicating the appellant.. Furthermore, the site plan of the place of the incident has been made under the guidance of the prosecutrix. Therefore, it is inconceivable that the prosecutrix would pinpoint the exact place at Jodhpur where she was allegedly subjected to rape, if a false case is being fabricated against the appellant. 20. While assessing the testimony of the child witness, minor contradictions in the testimony, would not adversely affect the veracity of her testimony. Therefore, the minor contradictions, which may exist in the testimony of the prosecutrix, would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. After going through the trauma of alleged rape, it is too much for the prosecutrix to be consistent in her narration of facts. Therefore, minor contradictions, in fact, do lend credence to the veracity of her testimony, rather than diminishing it. 21. Undoubtedly, the poor are a vulnerable section of the society. Their vulnerability is aggravated by their poverty and by their illiteracy. They melt into the faceless and voiceless crowd. Their trauma and tribulation, their pain and agony are hardly heard in the cacophony of the society, or in the tranquillity of a courtroom. Child sexual abuse, in India, is a common phenomena: it is an open secret, and a tabooed subject. But, while the people at large may ignore the phenomena, the man in robes cannot turn a Nelson's eye towards this epidemic. 22. The Courts are meant to protect the rights and interests of the weaker section of the society. Justice demands and dictates that those who commit an offence against women and children should be dealt with firmly. For, such culprits not only violate the law, but also tear apart the moral fabric of the society. They, by their crimes, not only shock the conscience of the society at large, but also throw the victim into a personal hell. In the present case, no mitigating circumstance has been pointed out by the learned, counsel for the appellant, for reducing the sentence from ten years to seven years. His sentence, especially in grave offence, cannot be reduced on the whims and caprice and misplaced sympathies of the Court. 23. In the present case, no mitigating circumstance has been pointed out by the learned, counsel for the appellant, for reducing the sentence from ten years to seven years. His sentence, especially in grave offence, cannot be reduced on the whims and caprice and misplaced sympathies of the Court. 23. The learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Dharamvir Singh (supra), Doonga (supra) and Gopi (supra) in order to plead that the appellant should be acquitted. However, all these appeals were against the judgment of acquittal which were upheld by the Apex Court. Needless to say, the criteria for dealing with a judgment of acquittal is different form the criteria for upholding a conviction judgment. While dealing with an acquittal, the Courts are aware that the presumption of innocence has been strengthened by the acquittal. Moreover, unless the judgment of the learned trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality, a judgment of acquittal is generally not overturned. Furthermore, if two views are possible, the appellant Court does not substitute its views for the decision of the learned trial Court. However, while dealing with a conviction, the presumption of innocence is diluted. The appellate court is not only required to reassess the evidence, but is also required to examine the logic given by the learned trial Court for convicting the accused. Moreover, If the appellate court finds that the assessment of the evidence has been done legally, logically and properly by the learned trial Court, and two views are not possible, then it is the duty of the Court to uphold the conviction. 24. The learned counsel has also relied upon the case of Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo (supra) and on the case of Amar Chand (supra). However, both the cases are distinguishable on the factual matrix. 25. In the case of Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had noticed that the prosecution was unable to tell the Court as to what was the nature of the urgent official work for which the prosecutrix was required to travel with the appellant in the dead of the night. Moreover, although the prosecutrix asserted that she was a virgin, but her assertion was belied by the medical evidence which clearly proved that she was habitual to sexual intercourse. 26. In the case of Amar Chand (super), the entire issue related to age of the prosecutrix. Moreover, although the prosecutrix asserted that she was a virgin, but her assertion was belied by the medical evidence which clearly proved that she was habitual to sexual intercourse. 26. In the case of Amar Chand (super), the entire issue related to age of the prosecutrix. The said issue is not germane to the present case. 27. Hence, both the cases are inapplicable to the present case. In a catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the decisions of the Apex Court, or of High Courts are not to be read as though they are provisions of law. Every case would be decided on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. Therefore, the finding given in one case cannot be applied blindly to another case. [Ref. to State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1996) 6 SCC 172 Hence, the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant does not come to the rescue of the appellant. 28. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal. The impugned judgment dated 23.08.2007 is, hereby, confirmed. The appeal is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******