JUDGMENT P.K. Saikia, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24-2-2012, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl in Crl. Tr. No. 979/2008 under S. 376(2)(f), IPC convicting one Mr. P.C. Lalnunnema of offence under Section 376(2)(f), IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 (one) month for the offence aforesaid. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment, he preferred this appeal from jail. Mr. P.C. Lalnunnema would be referred to hereinafter as the accused person. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that on 13-7-2008 Smt. Thanhliri, mother of the prosecutrix, submitted a written complaint to the President, MHIP Khumtung Branch with a request to take appropriate action against the accused/appellant who had repeatedly raped her daughter. The victim above would be referred to hereinafter as "LK". 3. On being informed, Smt. Saithangpuii, the President of MHIP Khumtung Branch, submitted an FIR with police at Serchhip Police Station on 15-7-2008. The Police on receipt of the FIR, so lodged by the President, MHIP Khumtung Branch, registered a case under Sect. 376(2)(f), IPC and ordered the matter to be investigated by one C. Ramnunmawili, an S.I. of police. C. Ramnunmawili was examined as PW-8. 4. During the course of investigation, the I.O. visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses including the victim, got the victim examined by doctor, seized some articles during the course of investigation and on conclusion of the investigation, she submitted a charge-sheet under Section 376(2)(f) IPC against the accused person and forwarded the accused to the Court to stand his trial there. 5. The Magistrate before whom the charge-sheet was laid, committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions Judge, Aizawl, in turn, transferred the case to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Aizawl District, Aizawl for disposal in accordance with law. On the receipt of the case on transferred, the Addl. Sessions Judge, Aizawl District, Aizawl heard the learned counsel for the parties and thereafter, framed charge under Section 376(2)(f), IPC against the accused person. 6. The charge, so framed, on being read over and explained to the accused person, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On the receipt of the case on transferred, the Addl. Sessions Judge, Aizawl District, Aizawl heard the learned counsel for the parties and thereafter, framed charge under Section 376(2)(f), IPC against the accused person. 6. The charge, so framed, on being read over and explained to the accused person, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses including the victim and the I.O. of the case. The statements of the accused person were recorded under 313 Cr. P.C. and his plea was of total denial. 7. The learned trial Court, on conclusion of the trial and after hearing the argument, advanced by learned counsel for the parties, convicted the accused persons of offence under Section 376(2)(f), IPC and sentenced him to punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been assailed in this proceeding on the grounds more than one. 8. While arguing the case on behalf of accused/appellant, Smt. Dinari T. Azyu, the learned Amicus Curiae contended that there are several serious legal infirmities in the prosecution case under consideration. However, learned trial Court overlooked all those infirmities in the prosecution case and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge leveled against the accused person and convicted him as aforesaid. 9. One of the most serious allegations leveled against the prosecution case was that there was serious delay in initiating the case under consideration against the accused/appellant. Such delay was not at all explained. In the facts and circumstances of the case, delay which remained unexplained only serves to show that the case in question is a concocted one. 10. It has also been contended that there was evidence to show that the prosecutrix had sexual intercourse with some other persons of the locality during the time under consideration. There is also evidence to show that hymen of the prosecutrix got torn well before the incident under consideration. These coupled with the fact that prosecutrix general reputation was far from satisfactory again demonstrate that the allegation that accused had raped the prosecutrix cannot be accepted without a large grain of salt. 11. Again evidence on record shows that there was enmity between the accused and the mother of the prosecutrix over some domestic matters. Presence of disputes between the parties does not argue well to advance the cause of prosecution case. 11. Again evidence on record shows that there was enmity between the accused and the mother of the prosecutrix over some domestic matters. Presence of disputes between the parties does not argue well to advance the cause of prosecution case. Quite contrary to it, it only served to show that the mother of the prosecutrix settled her dispute through the allegations made in the proceedings under consideration. 12. In that connection, it has been pointed out that the witnesses examined from the side of defence very clearly show that the mother of the prosecutrix promised on occasion more than one that the accused would be taken to task for his having dispute with her. These are testimonies to the fact that the mother of the prosecutrix had initiated a case against the accused/appellant on some imaginary and wild allegations. 13. It has also been contended that prosecutrix was said to be a girl of 12 years of age. But there is no reliable evidence on record to justify that she was actually a girl of 12 years of age at the time when the incident was occurred. This shows that even if there was a sexual intercourse between the accused and the prosecutrix at any point of time, such intercourse, in the facts and circumstances of the case in question are all consensual ones. 14. The learned Amicus Curiae, therefore, urges this Court to set aside the judgment, impugned and to acquit the accused/appellant of the offence, he was convicted of by trial Court and for which he was punished as aforesaid. 15. This prayer is strongly objected to by Mr. A.K. Rokhum, the learned Public Prosecutor. It is pointed out that there is indisputable evidence on record to show that accused had threatened the prosecutrix not to divulge what he had done to her on occasions more than one. These revelations coupled with the facts that victim is a young girl of about 12 years of age only clearly show that one cannot take offence for the FIR not being filed soon after the incident in question. 16. It has also been stated that the victim girl evidently and admittedly hails from a poor family not at all accustomed to modern way of life. 16. It has also been stated that the victim girl evidently and admittedly hails from a poor family not at all accustomed to modern way of life. What is more, the prosecutrix and her family do not have full access to the education as well to make them aware of their rights under the law. Rather, they are simple tribal people living in distant part of the State of Mizoram. These factors when read together again reveal that non-lodging of ejahar soon after the incident has not impact on the prosecution case. 17. The evidence of prosecutrix as far as her being raped by accused is concerned is supported by mother on one side and by the doctor (PW-8) on the other side. That apart, this circumstance attending the case also lends credence to the claim of prosecutrix that she was raped by accused person. The fact that there was absolutely no enmity between the accused and the prosecutrix family as is evident from the testimonies of PW-4, PW-5 further fortify the aforesaid claim of prosecutrix. 18. As far as victim age is concerned, it has been pointed out that the claim of prosecutrix that she is 12 years of age as well as the observation, made by doctor that the victim was about 12 years of age had not at all been challenged by the defence. So also the age certificate, issued by church. These are forceful testimony to the fact that the victim was about 12 years of age when the incident in question struck her. 19. Furthermore, PW-4 too very emphatically claims that the age of victim was about 11 years of age when incident in question occurred. These further fortified the claim of the prosecution that the prosecutrix was a very young girl at the time in question. Being so, it cannot be said that prosecution had not proved that prosecutrix was a girl of 12 years of age at the time under consideration. 20. It has been pointed out that accused and prosecutrix are close door neighbours. More importantly, the prosecutrix and her family lives in abject poverty, if one is to believe the testimonies rendered by the DW-1 and DW-2. Unfortunately, the accused took the advantage of the situations above and had sexual intercourse with a young girl again and again and in that process, he perpetuated untold miseries on the hapless young girl. More importantly, the prosecutrix and her family lives in abject poverty, if one is to believe the testimonies rendered by the DW-1 and DW-2. Unfortunately, the accused took the advantage of the situations above and had sexual intercourse with a young girl again and again and in that process, he perpetuated untold miseries on the hapless young girl. He, therefore, urges this Court to dismiss the appeal on affirming the judgment of trial Court. 21. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties having regard to the materials on record. On making such an exercise, I find it necessary to reproduce the evidence of prime prosecution witness. Since the learned Trial Court has properly reproduced the evidence of witnesses. I too reproduce such evidence in my judgment in the following manner. PW No. 3 is the "LX". She identified the accused and stated that the accused is her next door neighbour and he lives all alone as other members of his family are living in a separate house. She stated that the accused often used to visit her house and she has also visited his house with her siblings. She could not remember the date and month when the accused first had sexual intercourse with her at his residence. She stated that the accused had sexual intercourse with her two times in his residence and the third time was on a YMA Day at her residence when her parents had gone to paddy field and her two siblings had gone out to play and she was baby sitting her younger sister who was about one and half years and was fast asleep. She further stated that when the accused had sexual intercourse with her he threatened her not to shout and also not to disclose to anyone or he would kill her with a dao. She also stated that after having sexual intercourse with her he threatened her and gave Rs. 10/- on two occasions and Rs. 20/- on one occasion. She further stated that when the accused had sexual intercourse with her he threatened her not to shout and also not to disclose to anyone or he would kill her with a dao. She also stated that after having sexual intercourse with her he threatened her and gave Rs. 10/- on two occasions and Rs. 20/- on one occasion. She stated that she was having pain in her abdomen very often and she used to complain to her mother and her mother asked her whether the accused had sex with her or not after noticing the behaviour of the accused who was very dominating upon her but she did not tell anything to her mother due to fear of accused but later she disclosed the incident to her mother and her parents reported the matter to MHIP Khumtung. The President, MHIP Khumtung asked her about the incident and she told her everything about the incident. She stated that the Police recorded her statements and she was medically examined at Serchhip Civil Hospital and that she has completed 12 years and running 13 years. In her cross-examination she stated that when the accused first had sexual intercourse with her, she was alone with a baby of 1 year and few months and that she did not shout for help as the accused threatened her. She also stated that before she was called by the Police she was not examined by a doctor and that no one saw them at the time of having sexual intercourse. She further stated that when the accused had sexual intercourse with her in her house Nu Nagaihi was present and she did not see them having sexual intercourse though she came to them and that the underpants worn by her at the time of sexual intercourse was not seized by the Police. PW No. 1 Saithangpuii is the informant. She stated on 13-7-2008 she received a complaint in her capacity as President, MHIP Khumtung Branch from Smt. Thanhliri mother of the prosecutrix "LX" and the complainant stated to her that on 15-6-2008 i.e. YMA Day, her said daughter was raped by the accused. After receiving the complaint, she called for a joint meeting of the Office Bearers of other NGO's such as YMA and the Village Council on 14-7-2008 wherein it was resolved that the matter should be informed to the Police. After receiving the complaint, she called for a joint meeting of the Office Bearers of other NGO's such as YMA and the Village Council on 14-7-2008 wherein it was resolved that the matter should be informed to the Police. Accordingly, she submitted the FIR on 15-7-2008 and she proved the same as Ext. P-1 and her signature as Ext. P-1(a). She also stated that she was told by the prosecutrix that the accused had raped her more than once. She accompanied the prosecutrix to the hospital and on being asked by her, the Doctor at the hospital had informed her that damage has been done to the prosecutrix. In her cross-examination she stated that the FIR was written by the Police and that the only question asked to her by the Police was whether she was in favour of the victim. She has no personal knowledge about the incident. PW No. 2 Thanhliri is the mother of the prosecutrix. She stated that she and the accused are neighbours and they had good relation and he often used to visit their house and her children including the prosecutrix likes him and they used to visit his house. She stated that her house and the house of the accused are a bit isolated from the other houses in their village. She stated that the prosecutrix was born on 30-12-1996 and that few months back her said daughter complained of pain in her abdomen and waist and at the beginning she did not pay much attention to her said complaint, however, as she often complaint of the pain, she asked her whether she had indulged in sex or someone has molested her, she then disclosed to her that the accused had sexual intercourse with her in his residence and threatened her not to disclose to anyone and that he will kill her with a dao. The prosecutrix also informed her that the accused told her not to shout while he had sex with her. She stated that according to her said daughter, the incident occurred on YMA day i.e. 15-6-2008. After learning the incident from her daughter, she submitted a complaint to the MHIP Khumtung in writing. She and her daughter also verbally informed the matter to the President and some staff of MHIP when they went to their house after receiving the complaint. She stated that according to her said daughter, the incident occurred on YMA day i.e. 15-6-2008. After learning the incident from her daughter, she submitted a complaint to the MHIP Khumtung in writing. She and her daughter also verbally informed the matter to the President and some staff of MHIP when they went to their house after receiving the complaint. She also stated that it was jointly decided by the YMA, VC and MHIP that an FIR should be lodged. So on the next day the President, MHIP Khumtung Branch lodged an FIR. In her cross-examination, she stated that she has not personally seen the incident except what was stated to her by her daughter and that the FIR was submitted by the MHIP on the next day after the incident was disclosed to her by her daughter. She denied that nothing was disclosed to her by her daughter. PW No. 4 Lalngaihzauvi identified the accused and stated that they are neighbours. She also knows the prosecutrix. According to her the prosecutrix must be about 11 years old but she is physically well built and without knowing her age she is the size of mature woman. As far as she knows the accused sometimes drink liquor and he has already divorced his wife and living alone. She sated on the day of celebration of YMA Day in the month of June, 2008 she was busy in her kitchen and she heard the whispering of a man which she knew to be the accused. She thought it was the prosecutrix's father but she went closer and came to learn that it was the accused. According to her the door was closed and then the accused had had climbed over the window and held the prosecutrix behind and she suspected something but since the window was closed she could not see what was going on between them. After sometime, she saw the accused jumping down from the opposite windows of the prosecutrix's house from where she stood. But in re-examination she stated that she did not see the accused jumping down as there was a wall between them but heard the sound of jumping and that she also heard the accused talking to the prosecutrix before climbing on the window. But in re-examination she stated that she did not see the accused jumping down as there was a wall between them but heard the sound of jumping and that she also heard the accused talking to the prosecutrix before climbing on the window. In the cross-examination, she stated that she did not hear the whispering of a man and she could not see the accused holding the prosecutrix from behind as there was wall between her and the accused. She does not know whether the door was locked but stated that it was closed and she did not see the accused jumping down from the opposite window but she heard the sound. To her knowledge, the prosecutrix and her younger sister were inside the house. PW No. 5 K. Hamangaihthangi the Asst. Secretary, MHIP Khumtung Branch, PW No. 6, Kamliana, Secretary, Khumtung Village Council and PW No. 7 K. Fangzauva, Treasurer, Khumtung Village Council proved that on 14-7-2008 a joint meeting of MHIP, VC and YMA resolved to lodge an FIR to the Police against the complaint made by the mother of the prosecutrix to the MHIP Khumtung against the accused. In the cross-examination PW Nos. 5 & 6 stated that they heard from the prosecutrix that she was raped by the accused. PW No. 8 C. Ramnunmawili is the Investigating Officer. She stated that she was posted at Serchhip P.S. from 2005-2009 and on 15-7-2008 an FIR was received from Smt. Saithangpuii, President MHIP Khumtung to the effect that the prosecutrix "LX" was raped by the accused and the last incident was on 16-6-2008. Accordingly, Serchhip P.S. Case No. 376(2)(f), IPC was registered against the accused and the Officer-in-charge endorsed the case to her for investigation. During investigation she arrested the accused, visited the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of the accused and the prosecutrix and other witnesses. The prosecutrix was also sent for medical examination at Serchhip hospital and seized the Baptismal Certificate of the prosecutrix wherein her date of birth was recorded as 30-12-1996. She also stated that the reason for delay in lodging the FIR was threat made by the accused to the prosecutrix. Upon completion of the investigation, she found prima facie case against the accused and laid charge-sheet against him u/S. 376(2)(f), IPC. She proved the final report as Ext. P-3 and her signature as Ext. She also stated that the reason for delay in lodging the FIR was threat made by the accused to the prosecutrix. Upon completion of the investigation, she found prima facie case against the accused and laid charge-sheet against him u/S. 376(2)(f), IPC. She proved the final report as Ext. P-3 and her signature as Ext. P-3(a), the Seizure Memo indicating the property seized as the Baptismal Certificate of the prosecutrix as Ext. P-4 and her signature as Ext. P-4(a) and the said Baptismal Certificate was produced and marked as Ext. M-(1). The Arrest Memo as Ext. P-5 and her signature as Ext. P-5(a). In the cross-examination, she stated that she did not make any requisition for medical examination of the accused and neither the prosecutrix or her mother made any direct complaint against the accused and she did not seize the underwear of the accused and the prosecutrix and that there were no eyewitness to the incident. She further stated that she did not ask the prosecutrix whether she was making statement against the accused due to fear and pressure from relative and that she did not examine the person/authority who issued the baptismal certificate and there are certain overwriting in the said certificate and that the FIR does not contain any reason for the delay. PW No. 9 Dr. R. Lalawmpuia is the Medical Officer who conducted medical examination upon the prosecutrix. He stated that he conducted medical examination on the prosecutrix on 15-7-2008 @ 3:20 p.m. in the District Hospital at Serchhip and upon examination she found that the prosecutrix was physically and mentally healthy and on examining her genital area he found her hymen torn and no sign of fresh injury could be seen due to the fact that the examination was conducted one month after the incident and for the same reason vaginal swab was also not sent for laboratory examination. The said witness proved the Medical Report as Ext. P-2 and his signature as Ext. P-2(a). In his cross-examination, he stated that the meaning of torn and rupture of hymen are the same and such rupture can be caused by other objects and that he cannot ascertain whether the tearing of the hymen was caused by the male organ of the accused and he has not medically examined the accused. 22. P-2(a). In his cross-examination, he stated that the meaning of torn and rupture of hymen are the same and such rupture can be caused by other objects and that he cannot ascertain whether the tearing of the hymen was caused by the male organ of the accused and he has not medically examined the accused. 22. Before we proceed further, let me see what was the age of the victim at the time under consideration. On going through the evidence on records, I have found that the victim categorically claimed that at the time of incident she was a girl of 12 years of age. This evidence of PW-2 finds support from her mother (PW-2), her neighbour (PW-5) as well as the doctor (PW-6). 23. These evidences which remains unchallenged finds support from Baptismal Certificate issued by church. I have found absolutely nothing to disbelief the above evidence rendered by the prosecutrix and other witnesses aforementioned. Being so, in my considered opinion, the prosecutrix was a young girl of 12 years of age at the time under consideration. 24. The prosecution case has been challenged on the count that there was delay which remained unexplained and it is fatal to the prosecution case. I have found that there was delay in lodging the case. But such delay did not remain unexplained. There is enormous evidence of convincing nature to show that the accused threaten the prosecutrix not to divulge to anybody what he had done to her. 25. There is again evidence to show that prosecutrix and her family live in wretched conditions and they had hardly any access to education. What is more they are simple tribal people who live in far flung area of the State of Mizoram. When these things are considered together one cannot find fault with the victims not reporting the matter to the police soon after the commission of the same. 26. It has been contended that the victim wearing apparels or for that matter, the wearing apparels of the accused were not seized and that too without assigning any reason whatsoever. This also casts a serious doubt on the prosecution case--argue learned Amicus Curiae appearing for and on behalf of accused person. This is not true. 27. 26. It has been contended that the victim wearing apparels or for that matter, the wearing apparels of the accused were not seized and that too without assigning any reason whatsoever. This also casts a serious doubt on the prosecution case--argue learned Amicus Curiae appearing for and on behalf of accused person. This is not true. 27. Evidently, the incident was reported to the police after a gap of almost 1 (one) month from the date when the incident in question occurred for the last time. Being so, at that point of time, seizure of wearing apparels of victim and the accused person could no way help the prosecution case in consolidating its foundation. Thus, in my considered opinion, non seizure of those articles no way affects the case under consideration. 28. It is in those backdrops, let us consider how far the allegation of victim being subjected to sexual assault by the accused person is found truthful. On the perusal of evidence of prosecutrix, I have found that there is copious evidence to show that the accused person put the prosecutrix under threat and having put her under fear, he subjected her to sexual intercourse on occasions more than one. 29. Such evidence of prosecutrix finds corroborations from the testimony, rendered by her mother who was examined as PW-2. Equally importantly, the other witnesses, more particularly, PW-1 too lends support to such claim of PW-3 since she is heard saying that on being informed by the mother of the prosecutrix, she immediately reported the matter to the police in writing. The FIR, (Ext. P-1), she lodged, confirmed the claim which PW-1 made before the Court during trial. 30. In this context we may consider the evidence rendered by doctor who was examined as PW-6. In her evidence, PW-6 categorically states that there was an old tear in the hymen of the prosecutrix. The evidence of prosecutrix reveals that the accused had subjected her to sexual intercourse since 2008. Thus, the evidence of the prosecutrix is found to be totally in line of the testimony, rendered by doctor as far as prosecutrix having been subjected to sexual intercourse is concerned. 31. The evidence of prosecutrix reveals that the accused had subjected her to sexual intercourse since 2008. Thus, the evidence of the prosecutrix is found to be totally in line of the testimony, rendered by doctor as far as prosecutrix having been subjected to sexual intercourse is concerned. 31. Here, it is worth noting that the defence has contended that the prosecutrix was having promiscuous with very many boys in her locality and therefore, if there is any old tear in the hymen of the prosecutrix, it may well be attributed to sexual intercourse which the prosecutrix had with the boys of her locality and as such, for such tear in her private parts, the accused cannot be held responsible. 32. Such argument is without any basis. The above claim of Shri Hamangaihkima (DW-2) cannot be accepted as truthful one. Though DW-2 claims that one day, he saw the prosecutrix having sex with a local boy in her house. It is also his claim that he saw such incident peeping through hole in the wall of the house of the prosecutrix. His seeing the incident in a way as described by him in his evidence, however, hardly inspire any confidence. 33. The DW-2 also claims that prosecutrix and her other family member habitually commits theft and other illegal activities. DW-1 Shri. Lalbiakzami too rendered evidence in the same line. According to these DWs, such illegal conduct on the part of prosecutrix and her family members make their relations with their neighbours including the accused person quite inimical. But they are also found saying that they had never seen the prosecutrix and her family members committing theft. 34. More importantly, the claim of these two DWs that the mother of the prosecutrix had once claimed that she would take the accused to task one day for his not having good relation with her gets demolished completely for their clear admission that they, on their own, never ever heard the mother of the prosecutrix making aforesaid claims. The above admission on the part of the DWs not only makes their above evidence highly doubtful but it also administers a serious blow to the plea of innocence raised by defence. 35. It is also worth noting that PW-4 and PW-5 in very categoric term state that the relation between the accused person and the prosecutrix and her mother were normal at all relevant time. 35. It is also worth noting that PW-4 and PW-5 in very categoric term state that the relation between the accused person and the prosecutrix and her mother were normal at all relevant time. The witnesses from the prosecution side did not utter a single word about their having any information as to the unholy lives led by prosecutrix and her family members. This further fortifies more and more that DW-1 and DW-2 invented some theories to protect the accused from the punishment which is likely to fall upon him for misdeed aforesaid. 36. In view of above, I am of the opinion that prosecution has successfully proved that the accused person had sexual intercourse with a girl of 12 years of age on putting her under threat on occasion and as such, he is guilty of offence under Section 376, IPC. Situation being such, in my firm view, the learned trial Court committed no error in convicting the accused under Section 376(2)(f), IPC. 37. Coming to the sentence, I have found that under the law, a Court needs to impose a minimum sentence of 7 years of imprisonment and a fine on a accused person who is convicted of offence under Section 376(2)(f), IPC However, considering the fact, the accused was a man of about 64 years of age at the time when the trial was terminated, the learned trial Court had already punished him leniently by imposing a jail term for 5 years with fine of Rs. 5000/- in default S.I. for one month for the aforesaid. 38. Therefore, no further leniency could be shown to the accused-convict, moreso, when he is found having sexual intercourse with a girl as young as 12 years of age only. In the result, I am not inclined to interfere with the sentence imposed upon the accused-convict. Resultantly, the judgment of the trial Court is affirmed and appeal filed by the accused convict from jail is dismissed. 39. Before I part with the record, I deeply appreciate the assistance, rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae in disposing the appeal under consideration. Therefore, she be paid an amount to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- as her professional fees and same be released to her immediately. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.