JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. Appellant Lalawmpuia stood trial before the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lunglei under the charge 376(1) IPC in Criminal Trial No. 8 of 2008 for commission of rape sometime in the month of November, 2007 on the victim, (PW-3). The learned Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of the facts and evidence on records convicted the Appellant under 376(1) IPC and sentenced him to undergo S.I for four years. 2. Being aggrieved thereby, the Appellant preferred this appeal from jail. 3. The brief facts for the purpose of this appeal may be recorded as under: The family of the victim and the Appellant were neighbors. Both the family at the relevant point of time was living in the same building. Family of the Appellant stayed in the upper story while the family of the victim stayed in the down floor. Members of both the family had visiting terms. Informant, R. Laltluangpuii, (PW-1) is the mother of the victim(PW-3). On 9-1-2008 she filed an FIR (Ext. P-1) with the Officer-in-Charge of Lunglei Police station contending therein that in the middle of Nov. 2007 her nephew (PW-3) aged about 12 years was raped twice at Sabji Bazar and Lunglawn, Lunglei by the Appellant. Having received this information in writing Lunglei P.S Case No. 8 of 2008 were registered under Section 376(1) IPC. The informant (PW-1) in her FIR (P-1) stated that the incident was not within their knowledge since PW-3 was threatened by the Appellant herein. 4. Investigation started. During investigation PW-3 was medically examined by Dr. Zonunmawii Pachuau (PW5). Appellant was arrested and produced before the Magistrate to record his confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. However, the Appellant did not make confessional statement before the Magistrate rather pleaded his innocence. 5. During trial prosecution examined six witnesses altogether and proved certain documents to bring home the charge against the Appellant. Appellant was thoroughly examined under Section313 Cr.P.C. No defense evidence was adduced. The learned trial court after taking into consideration the evidence on record both oral and documentary convicted the Appellant under Section 376(1) and sentenced as indicated above. 6. We have heard Mr. Vanlalenmawia, learned Amicus Curiae for the Appellant and Mrs. Helen Dawnglinai, learned Addl. P.P. for the State of Mizoram. 7. Mr. The learned trial court after taking into consideration the evidence on record both oral and documentary convicted the Appellant under Section 376(1) and sentenced as indicated above. 6. We have heard Mr. Vanlalenmawia, learned Amicus Curiae for the Appellant and Mrs. Helen Dawnglinai, learned Addl. P.P. for the State of Mizoram. 7. Mr. Vanlalenmawia, learned Amicus Curiae at the very out set of his argument submitted that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence cannot stand in law, mostly on the ground of delay in filing the FIR and also on the evidence on record, evidence of PW-3 in particular. Since their evidence appear to be not truthful and acceptable it was argued by him that though the offence alleged to have been committed in the month of November, 2007, no report was lodged with the police immediately and the factor of commission of the alleged offence was not divulged by the victim neither to her mother nor to her aunt immediately after the occurrence. Further it was argued by him that there is no evidence to show that the victim was a minor at the relevant point of time. According to him no ossification test was conducted by PW-5, the doctor for the proof of age of the victim (PW-3). Referring to the evidence, evidence of PW-3 in particular it was submitted that she was allegedly raped twice by the Appellant and it was possible on the part of the Appellant she being a consenting party. 8. Mr. Vanlalenmawia, learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that the victim consented for sex with the Appellant and therefore, conviction of the Appellant cannot sustain. Further it was argued taking recourse to the evidence of the doctor (PW-5) that the hymen being not completely turned sexual intercourse with the Appellant cannot be said to have occurred. According to doctor (PW-5) hymen was partially ruptured and during examination he also detected mild redness in the valve. In the cross-examination this witness stated that tear in hymen may be caused due to various reasons. Further he stated in his cross-examination that there was no full penetration. It was argued by Mr. Vanlalenmawia, learned Amicus Curiae that to convict an accused under Section 376 IPC penetration is necessary. In the cross-examination this witness stated that tear in hymen may be caused due to various reasons. Further he stated in his cross-examination that there was no full penetration. It was argued by Mr. Vanlalenmawia, learned Amicus Curiae that to convict an accused under Section 376 IPC penetration is necessary. Sexual intercourse as alleged by the victim cannot be accepted in view of evidence of the doctor who categorically stated that he discovered partial tear in the hymen. It was argued that the Appellant is a grown up man and married one having children. As per the evidence of the witnesses, the victim was a minor till the date of her examination. When sexual intercourse is committed by grown up man with a girl aged about 12 years, there is every likelihood of rapture of hymen completely and there cannot be partial rapture in the process. The discovery of partial tear of the hymen by the doctor (PW-5) might be caused due to some other reason and not for sexual intercourse. Mr. Vanlalenmawia, learned Amicus Curiae submitted. 9. Mr. Vanlalenmawia, learned Amicus Curiae also laid stress the manner in which, the victim had been removed by the Appellant in his taxi. It was argued by him that though there is evidence on record that she had been forcibly taken, factor of not raising any alarm by the victim creates doubt in the mind of a reasonable man in the taking of the victim by the Appellant. It was argued by him that victim being a consenting party left with the Appellant at her own sweet will. She was never forced to accompany the Appellant as stated by the witnesses more particularly, PW-4, who claimed herself to be a friend of the victim. 10. Mr. Vanlalenmawia, learned Amicus Curiae on these grounds contended that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence cannot stand. 11. On the other hand resisting the submissions advanced by Mr. Vanlalenmawia, learned Amicus Curiae, Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Addl. P.P submitted emphatically that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is not liable to be set aside and quashed since the evidence of the witnesses are found truthful and acceptable and not shadowed with doubt. 11. On the other hand resisting the submissions advanced by Mr. Vanlalenmawia, learned Amicus Curiae, Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Addl. P.P submitted emphatically that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is not liable to be set aside and quashed since the evidence of the witnesses are found truthful and acceptable and not shadowed with doubt. It was submitted by her in the context of delay in lodging FIR that the FIR could not be filed in time on account of threat given by the Appellant to the victim (PW-3). It was argued by her that victim was a girl of 12 years of age and she being threatened, she did not divulge the commission of rape on her by the Appellant. So, there appears a reasonable ground for not filing the First Information Report immediately after the incident. The act of sexual intercourse was divulged by PW-3 to her aunt (PW-2) when she was called by her aunt to ask whether anything had happened with the Appellant. On being queried, PW-3 divulged to PW-2 that she had been raped by the Appellant not only once but on several occasions. PW-2, thereafter being the aunt informed her mother (PW-1), who immediately lodged an FIR with the police. Police also took prompt action on the basis of the First Information Report (Ext. P-1) and arrested the Appellant. Police also produced the victim before the doctor (PW-5) for her medical examination. 12. It was submitted by Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Addl. P.P. that point raised by the learned Amicus Curiae in respect of not raising any alarm while taking by the Appellant cannot be accepted in view of the evidence of PW-4 and the victim herself. Referring to evidence of both the witnesses it was submitted by her that victim was taken forcibly by the Appellant while she was returning from church along with PW-4 and another. PW-4, in her evidence categorically stated that at the time of taking PW-3 by the Appellant she (PW-3) resisted, but the Appellant overpowered and dragged her inside the car used by the Appellant at that time. 13. Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Addl. P.P also taking recourse to evidence of PW-2 submitted that the Appellant made an extra judicial confession before her that he is in love with the PW-3 and had sex with her on several occasions. 13. Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Addl. P.P also taking recourse to evidence of PW-2 submitted that the Appellant made an extra judicial confession before her that he is in love with the PW-3 and had sex with her on several occasions. He also warned PW-2 to desist PW-3 to mix-up with other male persons. This piece of evidence also lends support to the evidence of PW-3, the victim that it was the Appellant who committed rape on the victim (PW-3). Evidence of PW-3 goes to show that on the date while she was returning from church with her friend, PW-4 and another she was taken forcibly by the Appellant and committed rape on her inside the car. Therefore, the factor of forcible taking of the PW-3 by the Appellant cannot be ruled out in view of evidence of PW-4. It was submitted by Mrs. Helen Dawngliani that a joint reading of the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 together with PW-5, it would appear that PW-3 was a minor at the relevant time and she had been raped by the victim not only once but on several occasions. Rape having been committed inside the car by the Appellant, it was argued that even if hall was raised by the PW-3, the same could not reach the people nearby and therefore, the argument advanced by Mr. Vanlalenmawia, learned Amicus Curiae would not be acceptable. 14. It is in the evidence on record that the family of both the Appellant and the victim resided in the same building and they had visiting terms, therefore, the Appellant being a neighbor when called PW-3 to come along with him in the vehicle used by him certainly she would not refuse to accompany him. It was argued that taking the advantage of her accompaniment with the Appellant in the vehicle used by him he had the opportunity to rape her inside the vehicle. 15. We have found from the evidence of doctor (PW-5) that she was medically examined on 9-1-2008. Such examination was done apparently after several months of the date of occurrence, naturally there would be no presence of spermatozoa in the virginal swab taken by the doctor that sent for examination. However, doctor (PW-5) while examined the PW-3 discovered of partial rupture in the hymen and also redness in the valve. Such examination was done apparently after several months of the date of occurrence, naturally there would be no presence of spermatozoa in the virginal swab taken by the doctor that sent for examination. However, doctor (PW-5) while examined the PW-3 discovered of partial rupture in the hymen and also redness in the valve. Evidence of the doctor (PW-5) also thus lends support to the evidence of PW-3, the victim. 16. Now, the issue before us is whether the conviction and sentence rendered by the trial Judge can sustain in view of the evidence of PW-3 alone minus other testimony. As it appears from the record that PW-1 is a reported one and as such she could not have personal knowledge about the occurrence. She was informed by PW-2, the aunt that PW-3 had been raped by the Appellant some time in November, 2007, who accordingly, lodged FIR with Police. Evidence of PW-2, however, lends support to the evidence of PW-3. She in her evidence categorically stated that Appellant telephoned her on several occasions asking the where about of the victim and during conversation he (Appellant) divulged to her that he is in love with PW-3 and not only that he had sex with her on several occasions. PW-3, the victim in her evidence very neatly stated that she had been taken by the Appellant forcibly in the car used by him while she was returning from church with PW-4 and another and thereafter Appellant forcibly had sex with her near Sabji Bazar inside the vehicle. She also stated that the Appellant also had sex with her without her consent subsequent thereto. The factor of forcible taking is supported by PW-4, a friend of PW-3. She also stated that PW-3 was taken by the Appellant forcibly in the car used by him. Though the incident had been divulged after a gap of several months, the manner in which PW-2 and PW-3 stated during trial, their evidence therefore, cannot be disbelieved in view of the evidence of the doctor though no ossification test was conducted. It has always been stated by the PWs that victim (PW-3) was a minor at the relevant point of time. Though it has been emphasized by the learned Amicus Curiae that sex was committed on the victim on consent, such consent obtained from a minor girl would be not sufficient to assist the Appellant. It has always been stated by the PWs that victim (PW-3) was a minor at the relevant point of time. Though it has been emphasized by the learned Amicus Curiae that sex was committed on the victim on consent, such consent obtained from a minor girl would be not sufficient to assist the Appellant. Consent of a minor is immaterial and it cannot render conviction invalid under Section 376 IPC. 17. Taking note of the facts, evidence on record, evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 in particular, this Court finds cogent and reasonable ground not to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is accordingly maintained. 18. Appeal stands dismissed. 19. For rendering valuable assistance by Mr. Vanlalenmawia, leaned Amicus Curiae, his fee is quantified at Rs. 5000/-, which shall be paid to him by the State of Mizoram. Appeal dismissed