JUDGMENT Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 30.03.2006, passed, in Sessions Case No. 100 (J-J)/2005, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Jorhat, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and, in default, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. The prosecution's case, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described as under On 01.08.2005, at about 11.30 am, the accused, who used to be a tenant in the house of the parents of the victim (P), aged about 5 years, called her to his house, situated in the courtyard of the house of her parents. The victim (P) used to often visit the house of the accused and called him "Kaku" (i.e., uncle). On being called by the accused, P went to the house of the accused, who put her on his bed, removed her underwear, made her lie on the bed and entered his penis into her vagina. On the accused having inserted his penis into her vagina, P got hurt and felt pain; she cried out of pain, whereupon the accused gagged her mouth, she started bleeding from her vagina. Leaving her in the said state, the accused left his house asking P not to tell anything to any body at home. P, however, came home crying and her mother, who was working at her house, noticing P crying, tried to find out from her as to what had happened. In response thereto, P told her mother as to what the accused had done. P's mother saw blood on the underwear of P. At the time of the said occurrence, P's father was not at home and when he returned home, he was reported about the occurrence by P's mother. The parents of P, then, took P to Lichubari Police Outpost, which falls under Jorhat Police Station, and the father of P lodged there an information, in writing, to the effect that accused Mannan Ali, a tenant of their house, had called their daughter P to his room and committed rape on her and that as a result thereof, P had sustained bleeding injury at her vagina. By making GD Entry No. 8, dated 01.08.2005, in this regard, the In-Charge of the said outpost (P.W. 8) forwarded the said Ejahar to Jorhat Police Station. Based on the Ejahar, and treating the same as First Information Report, Jorhat Police Station Case No. 460 of 2005, was registered, under Section 376(2)(f) IPC, against the present accused-appellant. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 8), who was the In-charge of the said outpost, got P medically examined, seized the panty, which P was said to have been wearing at the time of occurrence, and, on visiting the place of occurrence, he found that the accused had already been apprehended by his co-villagers, whereupon the Investigating Officer arrested the accused and seized his underwear. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer was also informed by the neighbours of P that hearing someone crying at the house of P, they went there and they were reported by P's mother (P.W. 3) that the accused had committed rape on P inside his house and that they looked for the accused and, on his being apprehended, the accused admitted before them that he had committed rape on P. Having found the accused, as indicated hereinbefore, already apprehended by his co-villagers, the police arrested him, his underwear was seized and, on completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the accused under Section 376(2)(f) IPC. 2. During trial, when a charge, under Section 376(2)(f) IPC, was framed, the accused pleaded not guilty thereto. 3. In support of their case, prosecution examined nine witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and, in his examination aforementioned, he denied that he had committed the offence, which he was alleged to have committed, the case of the defence being that of denial. No evidence was adduced by the accused. 4. Having, however, found the accused guilty of the offence charged with, the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence passed against him, the convicted person has preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. J.A. Hassan, learned Amicus Curiae, and Mr. K. Munir, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 6. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence passed against him, the convicted person has preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. J.A. Hassan, learned Amicus Curiae, and Mr. K. Munir, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 6. Considering the fact that it is P (P.W. 2) around whose evidence revolves the entire case of the prosecution, we, first, deal with the evidence of P.W. 2, who was, admittedly, 5 years old and, therefore, a child witness. Apart from the fact that a child witness is competent witness if Court finds that she has the ability of understanding and capable of responding to the questions put to her, the learned trial Court, as the records reveals, did examine P.W. 2 to determine if she was a competent witness and, having found that she was able to follow the questions put to her and responded thereto, it (the learned trial Court) arrived at the conclusion that P was competent to testify and accordingly recorded her evidence. 7. In her evidence, P (P.W. 2) has deposed, describing the occurrence, that she lives in her house with her parents and her younger sister and knows the accused, whom she used to call "Kaku" (i.e., uncle), because the accused used to be a tenant in their house, his rented house being in front of her parental house. 8. As regards the occurrence, P (P.W. 2) has deposed that one day, Mannan Kaku (i.e., the accused-appellant) called her away to his house and, on her entering into his house, accused removed her panty and made her lie on the bed and inserted his penis into her vagina, which hurt her and she felt pain. It is in the evidence of P (P.W. 2) that as she cried out, she was gagged by the accused, she started bleeding from her vagina and the accused, leaving her there, went out telling her that she should not tell anything to anybody at home. It is also in the evidence of P (P.W. 2) that she came to her house crying and noticing her crying, her mother, who was working at home, inquired from her as to what had happened and she told her mother as to what Mannan had done. It is also in the evidence of P (P.W. 2) that she came to her house crying and noticing her crying, her mother, who was working at home, inquired from her as to what had happened and she told her mother as to what Mannan had done. P (P.W. 2) has also deposed that her mother (P.W. 3) saw bleeding from her panty and when her father, who had gone for his work, reached back home, her mother (P.W. 3) reported the occurrence to him, whereupon both her parents took her to the police, police took her to hospital and also to Court, where she was interrogated, she narrated the incident there and her statement was recorded. 9. There was, virtually, no cross-examination of P (P.W. 2). In her cross-examination, it was not even denied by the defence that at the time of the occurrence, the father of P (P.W. 2) was not at home and that the persons, present at her house, were her mother and sister. In her cross-examination, P (P.W. 2) has asserted that after the occurrence, she narrated everything to her mother (P.W. 3). This assertion remained unchallenged by the defence. What the defence denied and disputed was that the accused had sexual intercourse with P (P.W. 2), but this suggestion was denied by P.W. 2. Thus, the suggestion, so offered, remained as mere suggestion and the evidence of P (P.W. 2) remained wholly unshaken in material aspects and nothing could be elicited by the defence to show that what she had deposed was untrue or false. 10. Closely following the evidence of P (P.W. 2), the evidence of her mother (P.W. 3) is that the accused was a tenant in their house, P (P.W. 2), who was aged about 5 years, used to call the accused "Kaku" (uncle), the house of the accused being adjacent to their house, P (P.W. 2) being her elder daughter. 11. With regard to the occurrence, P.W. 3 has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, i.e., on 01.08.2005, when her husband had gone to work, she (P.W. 3), her daughter (P.W. 2) and her younger daughter were at home, but the accused was in his room. 11. With regard to the occurrence, P.W. 3 has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, i.e., on 01.08.2005, when her husband had gone to work, she (P.W. 3), her daughter (P.W. 2) and her younger daughter were at home, but the accused was in his room. It is in the evidence of P.W. 3 that P.W. 2 occasionally uses to visit the house of the accused inasmuch as she addressed him as "Kaku" (i.e. uncle) and on that day too, at about 11.30 am, P.W. 2 went to the house of the accused, but shortly, thereafter, she came back from the house of the accused weeping and having seen P (P.W. 2) crying, P.W. 3 came out of her house and asked her daughter (P.W. 2) as to what had happened, whereupon P.W. 2 reported to her (P.W. 3) that "Kaku" (i.e. accused) had beaten her. It is also in the evidence of P.W. 3 that finding her daughter crying, when she asked the accused, the accused told her that P.W. 2 had fallen inside his room and got injured, when she was playing with the calculator and, thereafter, the accused went out. However, according to P.W. 3, as she had found her daughter bleeding from her lower portion, she examined her daughter (P) and found blood on her panty. It is in the evidence of P.W. 3 that on making inquiry, P (P.W. 2) told her that accused had laid her on bed, removed her panty, inserted his penis into her vagina, she felt hurt and got bleeding injury. It is also in the evidence of P.W. 3 that she saw her daughter's vagina ruptured and it was bleeding. P.W. 3 has deposed that when her husband (P.W. 4) arrived home, she (P.W. 3) reported the occurrence to her husband (P.W. 4) and her husband, too, noticed that blood was coming out of P's vagina, whereupon she (P.W. 3) and her husband took P (P.W. 2) to the thana. P.W. 3 has also deposed that before going to thana, she (P.W. 3) reported to her neighbours about what the accused had done, and her neighbours searched for the accused and, eventually, caught him and, on being questioned, the accused admitted that he had committed the mistake. P.W. 3 has also deposed that before going to thana, she (P.W. 3) reported to her neighbours about what the accused had done, and her neighbours searched for the accused and, eventually, caught him and, on being questioned, the accused admitted that he had committed the mistake. P.W. 3 has further deposed that she (P.W. 3), accompanied by her husband (P.W. 4) and her daughter P (P.W. 2), reached the thana, where her husband (P.W. 4) lodged an Ejahar. 12. The evidence of P.W. 3 also shows that P.W. 2 was examined at the hospital and the panty, which P.W. 2 was wearing at the time of occurrence, was seized and that P (P.W. 2) underwent treatment, at the civil hospital, Jorhat, for 10 (ten) days. P.W. 3 has also given evidence to the effect that since after the incident, her daughter (P) has been mentally suffering inasmuch as all the times, she (P) remains cling to her (P.W. 3). 13. In her cross-examination, P.W. 3 has admitted that she had not witnessed the occurrence herself She has also clarified, in her cross-examination, that she, first, reported the occurrence to her husband, when her husband reached home, and, then, she (P.W. 3) informed her neighbours as to what the accused had done. 14. Curiously enough, when P.W. 3 was cross-examined by the defence, the defence did not even suggest to P.W. 3 that her daughter (P.W. 2) had not reported to her (P.W. 3) that the accused had laid her on the bed and inserted his penis into her vagina. This apart, the evidence of P.W. 3 has virtually remained unchallenged. Except putting a suggestion to P.W. 2, which was denied, that the accused had not committed any bad act on the daughter of P.W. 3, nothing was elicited from her cross-examination. We see, therefore, no reason to disbelieve the evidence given by P.W. 3. 15. Lending support to the evidence of his daughter (P.W. 2) and his wife (P.W. 3), the evidence of P.W. 4, father of P.W. 2, is that on the day of the occurrence, he had gone for work leaving behind his wife (P.W. 3) and P.W. 2 and, at about 11.30/11.45 am, when he returned home from his work, he saw P.W. 2 bleeding from her vagina and his wife (P.W. 3) crying. P.W. 4 has deposed that on being asked, his wife (P.W. 3) told him (P.W. 4) that Mannan (i.e. the accused-appellant) had called their daughter P (P.W. 2) to his room and committed sexual intercourse by force and that as a result thereof, their daughter had started bleeding from her vagina and her panty was stained with blood. P.W. 4 has also deposed that on being asked, P.W. 2 told him (P.W. 4) that Mannan Kaku (i.e., the accused-appellant) had laid her on bed and committed sexual intercourse with her. 16. It is in the evidence of P.W. 4 that his neighbours brought the accused after making a search and detained him and asked him, whereupon the accused admitted that what he had done was wrong. 17. It is also in the evidence of P.W. 3 that he took P.W. 2 and his wife (P.W. 3) and accused Mannan to the police station and lodged an FIR there. In his cross-examination, while P.W. 4 admitted that he had not seen the occurrence, he (P.W. 4) asserted that he (P.W. 4) learnt about the occurrence from his wife (P.W. 3). This assertion of P.W. 4 went wholly unchallenged by the defence. 18. Close on the heels of the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4, the doctor (P.W. 1) has deposed that on 01-08-2005, i.e., the day of the occurrence, at about 2.30 pm, she had examined P.W. 2 and found as follows: Height of the girl = 3', Weight = 15 kg. Teeth = 11/11, breast = not yet developed, Auxiliary & pubic hair = Nil. Pelvic examination shows = lacerated injury extending from valva to vaginal introits (1 cm x.25 cm x.25 cm) Active bleeding present from the wounds. Radiological examination = (Vide Regn. No. 3-8-05)shows ossification not completed in bone around left elbow and wrist joints. Only 4 Nos. of carpel bones seen = suggesting age of the girl about 4 years. Pathological report of vaginal swab taken during the time of examination does not show any presence of spermatozoa (Lab. No. 37, dtd. 1.8.05). (Emphasis is added) 19. On the basis of the clinical, radiological and laboratory findings, P.W. 1 has opined that P.W. 2 was aged about 4 years and that the evidence of recent sexual assault could not be excluded. No. 37, dtd. 1.8.05). (Emphasis is added) 19. On the basis of the clinical, radiological and laboratory findings, P.W. 1 has opined that P.W. 2 was aged about 4 years and that the evidence of recent sexual assault could not be excluded. From the evidence of P.W. 1 (doctor), as has been depicted above, what clearly follows is that P.W. 2 had suffered lacerated injury on valva extending to vaginal introitus with active bleeding oozing from the wounds. 20. The defence declined to cross-examine the doctor and, hence, the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 1) remained unchallenged and her findings clearly reveal that P.W. 2 had sustained injury on her vagina and that there was active bleeding present from the wounds, which she had sustained on her vagina. 21. In the backdrop of the medical evidence on record, when the unshaken evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 are considered together, there remains no escape from the conclusion that the accused-appellant did subject P.W. 2 to sexual intercourse and thereby committed the offence of rape punishable by Section 376(2)(f) IPC. 22. While considering the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4, one has also to bear in mind that the panty, which P.W. 2, was, admittedly, wearing at the time of the alleged occurrence, was found stained with blood and the bed sheet at the house of the accused, which too was seized, had been found to contain blood stain. Though there were no serological tests of the blood so found, the fact that the panty of P.W. 2 was stained with blood and stains of bloods, on the bed sheet of the accused-appellant, was found strengthen the conclusion, which we have, otherwise, also reached, that the accused-appellant had sexual intercourse with P.W. 2. 23. Turning to the evidence of the neighbours of P.W. 2, namely, P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7, we notice that these witnesses have all deposed, in tune with each other, that on coming to learn from P.W. 3 that her daughter had been subjected to sexual intercourse by the accused, a search for the accused was made and the accused was apprehended and that on query being made by them, the accused admitted to have committed wrong. 24. 24. What needs to be, however, noted carefully, while considering the evidence of the neighbours, namely, P.W. 5, 6 and 7, is that a confession, such as, the one at hand, is an extra-judicial confession. Irrespective of the fact as to whether a confession is judicial or extra-judicial, it becomes relevant if it is 'voluntary' and 'true' and if a confession is involuntary, it becomes irrelevant and inadmissible in evidence and there is no requirement to determine if the confession, made involuntarily, is or is not true. 25. In the case at hand, there is nothing on record to show that the accused had remorse and/or repentance. Far from this, he was searched by his neighbours and, on being caught and questioned, he admitted to have committed sexual intercourse with P.W. 2. In these circumstances, as indicated hereinbefore, we find it wholly unsafe to hold that the extra-judicial confession, in the present case, could have been treated as voluntary. When a person is apprehended and questioned and in reply thereto, he make a confession, such a confession, unless can be shown otherwise, must be inferred to be involuntary. When a confession is involuntary, it becomes immaterial as to whether confession is true or not. The question of truthfulness or otherwise of a confession, judicial or extra-judicial, arises only when the confession is, otherwise, found to be voluntary. 26. In the case at hand, because of the fact that we are not inclined to hold that the confession, in question, was voluntary, we do not find it safe to rely on the same. Notwithstanding the fact that we exclude, as unsafe, the extra-judicial confession, which the accused-appellant had made, we find that the evidence on record, as given by P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4, coupled with the medical evidence on record, as given by P.W. 1, clearly prove, as already observed above, that the accused-appellant had committed sexual intercourse with P.W. 2, when she was a minor. 27. As the consent of the minor is irrelevant in a case of present nature, we have no hesitation in holding that the learned trial Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the accused had been proved guilty of the offence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC. 28. 27. As the consent of the minor is irrelevant in a case of present nature, we have no hesitation in holding that the learned trial Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the accused had been proved guilty of the offence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC. 28. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we do not see any reason to hold that the finding of guilt, reached by the learned trial Court against the accused-appellant, suffered from any infirmity, legal or factual. 29. In fact, nothing could be pointed out, on behalf of the accused appellant, to show that the charge, framed under Section 376(2)(f) IPC, could not be brought home. 30. Learned Amicus Curiae has, however, submitted that since the accused-appellant was barely 25 years old, he ought not to have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. We are unable to accept the submission, so made, for the simple reason that had the accused-appellant been 60 years old, it could have been argued that since he is old, sentence of life imprisonment ought not to have been imposed on him. If this argument is acceded to, the result would be that neither any person, aged about 25 years, can be sentenced to imprisonment for life for committing rape on a minor girl, nor a man of the age of 60 years. Consequently, it is the age group of 30 years and 60 years, which can be sentenced to imprisonment for life if they happen to be proved to be guilty of commission of rape on a minor girl. The argument, therefore, that since the accused-appellant was aged about 25 years and ought not to have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, does not appeal to us. 31. Situated thus, we see no reason to interfere either with the finding of guilt reached against the accused-appellant nor do we see any reason to interfere with the sentence passed against him. 32. This appeal is wholly without merit and is, therefore, dismissed. 33. Let the Amicus Curiae be paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- for his valuable assistance to this Court. Send back the LCR with a copy of this judgment and order. Appeal dismissed.