Judgment :- This revision has been filed against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam in Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2006 dated 10.01.2011 confirming the judgment passed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai in S.C.No.153 of 2005 dated 27.03.2006. 2. The learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai convicted the accused for offence punishable under Sections 341 and 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo one month simple imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 341 I.P.C. and to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. and ordered both the sentences to run concurrently. 3. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that even though she is a minor, she has given consent to the sexual intercourse. Therefore, it cannot be termed as rape. Secondly, he would also contend that there was a prior enmity between the father of the accused and the father of the victim. Therefore, it culminated in a false complaint as against the accused. This vital point was not considered by both the courts below. Hence, he would contend that the courts below was wrong in coming to the conclusion. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would bring out that the victim was a 8th standard school student. According to the school records, her date of birth is 10.07.1989. The occurrence took place on 12.08.2004. She was only aged 15 years. The Headmaster was examined as P.W.4. Therefore, she was a minor at the time of the occurrence. Even as per the opinion of the Radiologist who was examined as P.W.6, the victim was a minor but she was aged between 17 and 18 years. When the school records is clearly available and the evidence of the father of the victim is available regarding the age of the minor, there is no doubt that she was a minor at the time of occurrence. Even if there is a consent, such a consent will not absolve the liability of the revision petitioner. 5. Further, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would clearly indicate that she was forcibly raped. Infact, she has gone to attend the call of nature which is about 1 km away from the school. Even if there is a consent, such a consent will not absolve the liability of the revision petitioner. 5. Further, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would clearly indicate that she was forcibly raped. Infact, she has gone to attend the call of nature which is about 1 km away from the school. She was waylaid by the revision petitioner and another juvenile and the revision petitioner gagged her by cloth lifting her skirt and committed rape inspite of the resistance made by P.W.1/ the victim. Therefore, this is a serious offence forcibly made on a minor. 6. Lastly, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would contend that there was no evidence much less any documentary evidence to even allege that there was any previous enmity between the father of the accused and the father of the victim. Therefore, both the courts have rightly held that the offence has been committed against a minor and even the punishment given is a minimum punishment. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere at this stage and hence, prayed for the dismissal of the revision. 7. Heard both sides in detail. The main revision is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 8. The revision petitioner would mainly contend that there was a consent by the victim. Unfortunately, on a reading of the complaint as well as the reading of the evidence of P.W.1, it is very clear that there was no consent at all. Infact, in the complaint, the complainant would clearly state that she was gagged, forcibly taken and the revision petitioner lifted her skirt and committed rape inspite of the resistance made by her. Infact, she would also in her evidence would say that the juvenile accused who was present requested the revision petitioner to leave the victim. But, inspite of the request made, the revision petitioner committed the rape. 9. Further, in the complaint, she would also state that he threatened her that 'if she informed to her family members, they will perform the marriage and thereafter, she would have to suffer for the entire life with him'. Therefore, how can it now be stated as a consent and immediately after the occurrence, she went to her home and informed about the same to P.W.2/ her mother and uncle and other immediate relatives. Therefore, how can it now be stated as a consent and immediately after the occurrence, she went to her home and informed about the same to P.W.2/ her mother and uncle and other immediate relatives. No doubt, they in turn informed the father of the revision petitioner and the village President complaint and the complaint was lodged immediately. M.O.Nos.1 to 3 were also handed over to the police. 10. If we see M.O.1 to 3, namely, Shimmie, skirt and shirt of P.W.1, it has been examined by the Scientific Assistant of the Forensic Sciences Laboratory who has been examined as P.W.11 and certified that blood and semen were found in M.O.Nos.1 and 2. and the serology report also confirms that human blood and semen were found in the above materials. Therefore, when blood and semen were obtained in M.O.Nos.1 and 2, definitely, there was resistance and inspite of her objection, she has been forcibly raped. 11. Further, if we see Section 375 of I.P.C., it says, with or without consent when she is under 16 years of age the Hon'bleSupreme Court in (2003) 1 SCC 605 (Jinish Lal Sah V. State of Bihar) has categorically stated that, when the girl is below 16 years her consent is immaterial. Here, in this case, the evidence of the School Headmaster P.W.4 clearly states that the date of birth of P.W.1, the victim is 10.07.1989. The occurrence took place on 12.08.2004. Therefore, on the date of occurrence, she was 15 years, one month and two days old. She was below 16 years. 12. No doubt the revision petitioner would point out that as per the Radiologist report, she has completed 17 years and she is below 18 years during 2004. But as rightly pointed out by the Appellate Court, the Radiologist report is not a definite one to fix the age as always there is a possibility of margin of error of two or three years. In this case, admittedly, the evidence of the School Head Master P.W.4 coupled with the school certificate for her date of birth Ex.P.4 clearly shows that the victim girl is below 16 years at the time of occurrence. 13. Even otherwise, from the narration of facts by P.W.1 as well as in the complaint, it was very clear that there was no consent at all. 13. Even otherwise, from the narration of facts by P.W.1 as well as in the complaint, it was very clear that there was no consent at all. P.W.2 is the mother of the victim and she has stated that her daughter is actually 14 years old. P.W.4 is the Head Master who has stated that as per the School register, she is studying in 8th standard at the time of occurrence and her date of birth is 10.07.1989 and Ex.P.4 is the certificate issued by him. P.W.8 is the Doctor who was examined and she has stated that the hymen of the victim is ruptured and that she should have had intercourse on the day before the date of examination and she has given the certificate Ex.P.9. She has also stated in the certificate that there is a small scratch in the left corner of the mouth probably due to the scratch made by nail. Therefore, there was a clear evidence that the victim was subjected to rape by the accused and both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the victim was forcibly raped and that too when the school girl has gone to the call of nature. The trauma which she had undergone is enormous. There is no discrepancies. Hence, both the Courts below have clearly come to the conclusion that the victim has suffered this in-human torture. 14. In this connection, it is also useful to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 2 SCC 550 (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Chhotey Lal) for the proposition that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is found reliable, is sufficient to convict the accused and no corroboration of her evidence is required. 15. I do not find any reason to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the Courts below. Since a minimum punishment has been ordered, the request for lesser punishment also would not be considered. Hence, this revision is dismissed and the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam made in Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2006, dated 10.01.2011 confirming the order of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai made in S.C.No.153 of 2005, dated 27.03.2006 is confirmed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 16. It is represented that the revision petitioner/ accused is already in prison. Hence, he shall undergo the remaining period of sentence.