JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - The appellant has been convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 376, 323 and 506 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life with fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence under Section 376 IPC with a default clause. He was also sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323 IPC and to undergo RI for one year and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 506 IPC with a default clause. 2. The FIR (Ex.PA/II) was registered by Mandeep Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the “victim”) against the appellant in which she had alleged that she is 14 years of age and is studying in 10th class, whereas her elder brother Gurdip Singh is 16 years of age. Her father Narinder Singh (appellant) is a Bus Driver. She had been studying in village Assi Kalan, paternal village of her mother, up to 9th standard and now she had got admission in Government School, Sihora, in 10th standard. Her father used to beat her mother on petty matters. On 09.05.2005, after having dinner, when she alongwith her mother Rajpal Kaur, brother Gurdip Singh and father Narinder Singh (appellant) went to sleep on their cots, at about 11.00 p.m., her father (appellant) started touching her body, on which she woke up, told her mother that she is afraid and her mother asked her to sleep with her, but her father started abusing her mother. In the meantime, her brother also woke up but her father threatened him, on which he went to sleep. While she was sleeping with her mother, her father started touching her face and asked her that he loves her and wanted to sleep with her. When she did not do so, he started beating her and forcibly took her to his cot. Her brother and mother both woke up, but her father opened her salwar and started fingering her vagina and biting on her cheeks. Thereafter, he left her and she wore her salwar and went to her mother to sleep with her. The entire incident was witnessed by her mother and brother, but they could not speak anything out of fear. In the morning, her father threatened them not to disclose the incident to anyone and, hence, they did not disclose the same. Thereafter, he left her and she wore her salwar and went to her mother to sleep with her. The entire incident was witnessed by her mother and brother, but they could not speak anything out of fear. In the morning, her father threatened them not to disclose the incident to anyone and, hence, they did not disclose the same. On 10.05.2005, after having dinner, when she was sleeping with her mother, at about 12.00 p.m., her father called her to come to his cot, took off her salwar, started fingering her vagina and committed rape upon her against her wishes. She made noise, but her father did not leave her. Thereafter, she moved on to her mother. On 11.05.2005, at about 12.00 p.m., when she was sleeping in the courtyard, her father asked her to come to his cot and committed rape upon her forcibly for about half an hour and after 1-½ hours, when she was going to sleep with her mother, then her father again committed rape upon her. On 12.05.2005, nothing happened. On 13.05.2005, when she was sleeping with her mother, at about 12.00 p.m., her father called her, due to fear she moved to her father who took off her salwar, committed rape, pressed her breast and took them in his mouth. Every time, the entire incident was witnessed by her mother, but she could not speak. On 14.05.2005, her mother went to her paternal home, her maternal grandfather Gurmit Singh and maternal uncle Satinder Singh did not allow her mother to come back, rather on 14.05.2005, her maternal uncle Satinder Singh took the victim and her brother Gurdip Singh to village Assi Kalan. When they did not return to their village Assi Kalan, her father came to her Nanke and threatened them. At that time, her mother disclosed the whole story to her brother Satinder Singh and father Gurmit Singh, who took her and her mother to Police Station Payal, where the present FIR was lodged. 3. The victim was medico-legally examined on 21.05.2005 by Dr. Nirmaljit Kaur (PW4) who had found that there were two pigmented areas of about 1-½” on right cheek and 1-½” on left cheek. The patient was sent to skin specialist to know the nature and duration of these pigmented areas. Hymen was absent. 3. The victim was medico-legally examined on 21.05.2005 by Dr. Nirmaljit Kaur (PW4) who had found that there were two pigmented areas of about 1-½” on right cheek and 1-½” on left cheek. The patient was sent to skin specialist to know the nature and duration of these pigmented areas. Hymen was absent. The vaginal swabs were sent for chemical examination and as per report of the said chemical examination (Ex.PW4/A), no spermatozoa were seen. 4. The appellant was medico-legally examined by Dr. V.P.Soni (PW5) who had stated that as per report Ex.PW5/A, the appellant was fit to perform sexual intercourse. 5. The victim had appeared as PW1 and stated that she was born on 17.03.1991. She narrated the same story on the basis of which the FIR was registered, her mother went to her parental village on 14.05.2005 and thereafter, she alongwith her brother were also taken away there by her maternal uncle and when her father came to that village on 19.05.2005 for taking them back to his village Sihora, they refused and rather a complaint was lodged at Police Station, Payal. She also stated that she was taken to Civil Hospital, Payal on 19.05.2005, but the lady doctor was not available. Again on 20.05.2005, the lady doctor at Payal was not available. Then, on 21.05.2005, she was medico-legally examined at Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. She also made her statement (Ex.DA) before the Judicial Magistrate. In her crossexamination, she denied that Sukhpal Singh had committed rape upon her and that her mother and maternal uncle had compounded the matter with him after obtaining huge amount and did not register any case against him. 6. Rajpal Kaur, wife of the appellant, appeared as PW2 and stated that the victim was 14 years of age and was studying in 10th class. She had also corroborated the statement of the victim and has denied the suggestion that Sukhpal Singh of village Assi Kalan had committed rape on the victim or that her brother had taken huge amount from Sukhpal Singh for compounding the matter 7. Iqbal Singh, Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Assi Kalan, appeared as PW3, who had brought admission and withdrawal register of the school from 04.04.1997 to 11.07.2006, and has stated that name of the victim has been mentioned at Sr. Iqbal Singh, Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Assi Kalan, appeared as PW3, who had brought admission and withdrawal register of the school from 04.04.1997 to 11.07.2006, and has stated that name of the victim has been mentioned at Sr. No.1548 on 26.04.2001 when she was admitted in the school in 6th class and her date of birth is mentioned as 17.03.1991. 8. Investigating Officer Balkar Singh appeared as PW6 and the School Certificate (Ex.PW6/D) was also tendered in evidence, according to which the date of birth of the victim in the Middle School Certificate was 17.03.1991. 9. The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and stated that the victim has been raped by Sukhpal Singh of village Assi Kalan, but no FIR was registered against him as a huge amount was taken from him by his wife and her parents and because of this reason, he had brought the victim to his village Sihora and got her admitted in the school. Since he was opposing his wife and her brother, therefore, they have registered a false case against him. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant did not lead any evidence in his defence. 10. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex.PW4/A), no spermatozoa were seen on the vaginal swabs. He has also referred to the statement of PW4 who has stated in her cross-examination that spermatozoa remain present in the servic/vagina for about 10 to 12 days. It is submitted that if the victim had been sexually abused by her father (appellant) on 13.05.2005, the spermatozoa would have definitely been there and since they are found to be absent, therefore, the story put forward by the prosecution is totally false. 11. In this regard, learned State counsel has submitted that the victim was last raped by the appellant on 13.05.2005, whereas she had been medico-legally examined on 21.05.2005, after a gap of about 8 days and in this period, spermatozoa were not likely to be remain present in the vagina. 12. Counsel for the appellant has further argued that there is an inordinate delay in registration of the FIR. He submits that if the occurrence had last taken place on 13.05.2005, the FIR is 6 days thereafter on 19.05.2005. 13. 12. Counsel for the appellant has further argued that there is an inordinate delay in registration of the FIR. He submits that if the occurrence had last taken place on 13.05.2005, the FIR is 6 days thereafter on 19.05.2005. 13. In this regard, learned State counsel has submitted that as the victim was sexually abused by her own father, who had been threatening the entire family with dire consequences and was bold enough to commit rape upon his daughter in presence of his own wife, there was every likelihood of the victim and her mother or brother to be terrified in lodging the FIR. Rajpal Kaur (PW2) when visited her parental house on 14.05.2005, she did not disclose to her father and brother about the incident, rather she asked her brother to bring her children to her village on the same day, but when the appellant reached her village on 19.05.2005 to bring all of them back, apparently, for the purpose of satisfying his lust, there was a quarrel and in that she had to disclose his deeds to her father as well as her brother, which resulted into registration of FIR on the same day. 14. Counsel for the appellant has further argued that there is no sign of any external injury and as per doctor, the victim was habitual of sexual intercourse as his vagina admitted two fingers. 15. In this regard, it is submitted by learned State counsel that absence of any injury on the private parts is not indicative of the victim of being a consenting party, who is otherwise minor having been born on 17.03.1991. She was 14 years of age at the time of occurrence. 16. No other argument has been raised by counsel for the appellant. 17. After hearing counsel for the parties and keeping in view facts and circumstances narrated here-in-above, we are of the considered view that the appellant has failed to cause any dent in the prosecution version in order to earn to himself his liberty. Apparently, the victim was medico-legally examined after 8 days of the last rape having been committed on 13.05.2005 and hence, even as per the doctor who had stated that the spermatozoa remain present in the servic/vagina for about 10-12 days, the duration of 8 days is not less for the spermatozoa to destroy. Apparently, the victim was medico-legally examined after 8 days of the last rape having been committed on 13.05.2005 and hence, even as per the doctor who had stated that the spermatozoa remain present in the servic/vagina for about 10-12 days, the duration of 8 days is not less for the spermatozoa to destroy. In our considered opinion, this is not a circumstance which could prove the innocence of the appellant. Insofar as the delay in registration of the FIR is concerned, the victim had given the sequence of events of her rape on 10th, 11th and 13th May, 2005, whereas she did not state that she was raped on 12.05.2005 as well. If she was interested in falsely implicating the appellant, she could have added that day also with regard to commission of crime. Moreover, on 14.05.2005, when Rajpal Kaur (PW2) had gone to her parental house, she did not disclose the misdeeds of her husband to her father or brother, rather she asked her brother to bring her children from village Sihora. It was only on 19.05.2005, when the appellant had gone to the village of her in-laws and asked them to accompany him to his village that a quarrel took place in which his misdeeds were disclosed and on the same day, on the asking of her father and brother, Rajpal Kaur (PW2) asked the victim to register the FIR. 18. Looking from all the angles, we have found that there is no error in the order of the Court below in convicting and sentencing the appellant. 19. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------