Judgment U.C. Dhyani, J. Since aforesaid two criminal revisions have arisen out of the same judgment, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment and order for the sake of brevity. 2) PW1 Harphool Singh wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) to Station Officer, police station, Jhabreda on 17.02.1999, alleging the facts contained therein that he was a resident of village Sadoli, falling within the jurisdiction of police station, Jhabreda. On 07.02.1999, his wife was in bereavement and had gone to village Shimlana after hearing news about the death of her relative. His daughter (Pritam) went to school on 08.02.1999. She was a student of class X. She was aged about 16 years as on the date of incident. PW1 himself had gone out of the village for earning his wages. When PW1 came back in the evening, he found that his daughter was not at home. PW1 thought that his daughter might have gone to the house of her maternal uncle at village Manakpur. On 09.02.1999, PW1 again went to earn his wages. His wife returned home on 09.02.1999. She also made a search for her daughter. PW1 and his wife made a frantic search for their daughter (PW2), but to no avail. 3) It was further alleged in the complaint (Ext. Ka-1) that on 12.02.1999, at around 11:00 P.M., PW2 entered into the house. Wearing apparels of PW2 were torn and she was weeping. She told her parents that on 08.02.1999, when she was on way back to her house, after attending the school, she waited for the bus at the bus station. On having found that no transport was available there, PW2 started for her house on foot. She reached near Birju Ka Bagh. The same was situated in between her school and village. Raj Kumar alias Chotu and Rajender, who were the residents of Manakpur-Adampur, came in an Ambassador car. They told PW2 that they would drop her at her village. PW2 declined. PW2 used to go to Manakpur-Adampur alongwith her mother. She knew that Raj Kumar and Rajender were the persons of bad antecedents. Accused persons dragged her (PW2) inside the car on the point of knife and threatened her that she would be killed if she raised alarm. PW2 raised an alarm, but nobody came for her help. Accused persons kidnapped PW2. She knew that Raj Kumar and Rajender were the persons of bad antecedents. Accused persons dragged her (PW2) inside the car on the point of knife and threatened her that she would be killed if she raised alarm. PW2 raised an alarm, but nobody came for her help. Accused persons kidnapped PW2. PW2 also informed PW1 and his wife that she was kept inside a room in Delhi. Raj Kumar sexually assaulted her. Accused Rajender kept her confined in a room. She was taken back to her village subsequently and was set at liberty in the dead of night. PW2 was also threatened not to disclose the incident to anybody. It was further alleged by PW1 that he went to police station, Jhabreda, but Station Officer, Jhabreda had gone somewhere. PW1 was asked to come again and, therefore, he could lodge the complaint only on 17.02.1999. 4) Although the FIR was delayed but the delay in lodged the same was sufficiently explained. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harpal Singh and another vs State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 361 , that the delay in lodging FIR in rape cases is obvious. Sometimes the reputation of a family is at stake, and sometimes it is otherwise. 5) After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it’s case, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC were framed against the accused Raj Kumar. Charges under Sections 363, 366 of IPC were framed against the co-accused Rajender. Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. PW1 Harphool Singh (informant and father of the victim); PW2 Km. Pritam (victim); PW3 S.I. S.P. Bishnoi (I.O.); PW4 Dr. Urmila Bohra (Medical Officer), PW5 Dr. Yogesh Kumar (Radiologist) and PW6 H.C. Chintamani (formal witness) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Some important documents, including High School Marksheet of the victim, were also filed on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Asstt. Some important documents, including High School Marksheet of the victim, were also filed on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Roorkee, Haridwar convicted Raj Kumar and Rajender under Sections 363, 366 of IPC and were sentenced appropriately. Accused Raj Kumar was also convicted under Section 376 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, vide judgment and order dated 06.03.2003. Aggrieved against the same, a criminal appeal was preferred before the Sessions Judge, which was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Roorkee, Haridwar, vide impugned judgment and order dated 13.05.2008. The judgment rendered by the Asstt. Sessions Judge was affirmed. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order dated 13.05.2008, the above mentioned two criminal revisions were preferred by the convicts. 6) PW1, in the course of examination-in-chief, supported prosecution story and proved the contents of his complaint (Ext. Ka-1). The examination-in-chief of PW1 was almost the verbatim reproduction of the contents of the complaint and the same is being skipped in order to avoid repetition. 7) PW1 further said that the police took the wearing apparels of PW2 in their possession. A sealed packet containing the clothes of PW2 was opened before the trial court. Kurta (Mat. Ext. 1), salwar (Mat. Ext. 2) and the wrapper (Mat. Ext. 3) were exhibited before the trial court. PW1 also said that a recovery memo (Ext. Ka-2) regarding taking the clothes of the victim by the police was prepared which also contained the thumb impression of PW1. 8) In the cross-examination, PW1 said that he was an illiterate person. PW1 made a frantic search for his daughter. He went to the police station on 09.02.1999. Police did not lodge his report. It was finally lodged on 17.02.1999. PW1 was more concerned with the search and welfare of his daughter (rather than anything else). The incident took place when his daughter was on her way back to her village after attending the school. PW2 did not disclose as to for how many times she was sexually assaulted by Raj Kumar. It was finally lodged on 17.02.1999. PW1 was more concerned with the search and welfare of his daughter (rather than anything else). The incident took place when his daughter was on her way back to her village after attending the school. PW2 did not disclose as to for how many times she was sexually assaulted by Raj Kumar. Since PW1 was a father, therefore, he could not see the injuries on the person of PW2. PW1 could not see the stains of semen on the clothes of PW2. PW2 raised an alarm when she was being kidnapped by the accused persons. PW2 refuted the suggestion of the defence that the accused persons were falsely implicated in the case. He also refuted the suggestion put forward on behalf of the accused persons that wearing apparels of the victim were torn by PW1 himself. PW1 was emphatic in saying that PW2 was aged about 14-14½ years at the time of incident. Thus, nothing came in the cross-examination of PW1 to suggest that his statement was exaggerated or false. The testimony of PW1 was believable. It has already been indicated earlier that PW1 has sufficiently explained the delay in lodging the FIR. 9) PW2 (victim) was another important prosecution witness, who supported prosecution story in her examination-in-chief. When PW2 came to depose, according to her, she was 16 years old. PW2 said that the incident took place on 08.02.1999. She was studying in High School. She went to attend the school in the morning. After the school was over, PW2 came to bus stand and remained there till 12:30 P.M. PW2 waited for the bus, but when she found that no transport was available, she started for her house on foot. When PW2 reached near Birju Ka Bagh, accused persons, namely, Raj Kumar and Rajender came from behind in an Ambassador car. Accused persons belonged to Manakpur, the village of PW2’s maternal uncle. Since PW2 had earlier visited village Manakpur alongwith her mother, therefore, she was acquainted with the accused persons. Accused persons told PW2 to sit in the car. They offered to drop PW2 in the village, to which she declined. PW2 knew that they were not the persons of good antecedents. Accused persons kidnapped PW2 on the point of knife. PW2 raised an alarm, but no one came to her help. Accused persons dragged her inside the car. Accused persons told PW2 to sit in the car. They offered to drop PW2 in the village, to which she declined. PW2 knew that they were not the persons of good antecedents. Accused persons kidnapped PW2 on the point of knife. PW2 raised an alarm, but no one came to her help. Accused persons dragged her inside the car. They took PW2 to Delhi where she was kept confined in a room. Rajender did not permit PW2 to go outside the room. Raj Kumar raped her time and again from 09.02.1999 to 11.02.1999. PW2 was set at liberty in her village in the night of 12.02.1992. PW2 was also threatened not to disclose the incident to anybody, or else, she would be killed. Her wearing apparels were torn. PW2 went to her house. PW2 also said that she was wearing Mat. Ext. 1 and Mat. Ext. 2 when the incident took place. Her date of birth was 05.08.1984. PW2 filed the marksheet of High School (Ext. Ka-3) in the Court, which marksheet indicated her date of birth as 05.08.1984. In this way, PW2 was around 14½ years old when the incident took place. PW2 was cross-examined on all material points, but nothing came in her cross-examination so as to treat her testimony with suspicion. PW2 said, among other things, in her cross- examination, that many a girl students came from Jhabreda to her school. The students came to the school on foot, on tongas, on cycles and on tempos etc. None of the girl student was waiting for the bus. The road through which she was coming to her village was a thoroughfare. Accused persons had conversation with PW2 for 2-3 minutes. No one else, except the accused persons and PW2, were present when she raised an alarm. PW2’s clothes were torn when the accused persons dragged her (inside the car). Accused persons were armed with knives. PW2 was kept in Delhi in a room, which was situated at a densely populated area. PW2 sustained internal injury in her vagina, when Raj Kumar sexually assaulted her. PW2 also narrated the manner in which she was raped by Raj Kumar. PW2 also disclosed the location of the place where she was kidnapped. PW2 also said that she disclosed her date of birth as 05.08.1984 to the Investigating Officer. The victim also said that she was medically examined by the Medical Officer. PW2 also narrated the manner in which she was raped by Raj Kumar. PW2 also disclosed the location of the place where she was kidnapped. PW2 also said that she disclosed her date of birth as 05.08.1984 to the Investigating Officer. The victim also said that she was medically examined by the Medical Officer. X-ray of her limb was also conducted. Victim also explained what she meant by (the word) ‘rape’. She did not wash her wearing apparels after the incident. She was kidnapped on the point of knife. PW2 was intact in her cross-examination. Nothing appeared in such cross-examination to suggest that PW2 was telling a lie or the incident did not take place in the manner she deposed before the court below. The evidence tendered by PW2 was acceptable. Accused persons could be held guilty and convicted on the strength of oral testimony of PW2 alone. 10) PW3 was the Investigating Officer of the case, who conducted the investigation and after being satisfied that the accused persons committed the crime, submitted charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-6) against them. PW4 was the Medical Officer, who medically examined the victim and proved report (Ext. Ka-7). Victim was also referred to the Radiologist for x-ray. Her vaginal smear was also sent to Pathologist for pathological examination. PW4 also proved supplementary medical report (Ext. Ka-8). PW4 opined that the victim was between 18-19 years of age and no definite opinion about rape could be given. PW5 was the Radiologist, who conducted x-ray of wrist joint, elbow joint and knee joint of the victim. PW6 was a formal witness, who proved chik FIR and entry of the same in the G.D. Even if the Medical Officer opined that the prosecutrix (victim) was aged 18-19 years when she was examined, the fact remains that, as per her High School marksheet, she was less than 15 years, as on the date of incident. Victim’s date of birth is mentioned as 05.08.1984, which means that she was about 14½ years of age, as on the date the incident took place. Hon’ble Apex Court has held in catena of decisions that the date of birth as mentioned in the High School certificate will have precedence over any other piece of evidence. Going by this analogy, there is no hesitation in coming to the conclusion, that the victim was below 16 years of age when the incident took place. Hon’ble Apex Court has held in catena of decisions that the date of birth as mentioned in the High School certificate will have precedence over any other piece of evidence. Going by this analogy, there is no hesitation in coming to the conclusion, that the victim was below 16 years of age when the incident took place. There was no evidence of consent of the victim. Even no such suggestion was given on behalf of defence. It goes without saying that consent, if any, of a victim below 16 years of age in such cases is immaterial. Sixth description of Section 375 of IPC makes it amply clear. The Explanation appended to Section 375 of IPC further explains that mere penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prithi Chand vs State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1989 SC 702 , that mere absence of spermatozoa cannot cast a doubt on the correctness of the prosecution case. 11) The offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC were proved against both the accused-revisionists beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt on the strength of the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2, which was supported by other evidences. It was also proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-revisionist Raj Kumar alias Chotu committed rape with PW2. Thus, there is no hesitation in arriving at a conclusion that whereas the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC were proved against accused-revisionist Raj Kumar alias Chotu, offences punishable under Section 363 and 366 of IPC were proved to the hilt against co-accused Rajender. Both the courts below correctly appreciated the prosecution evidence and rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove the case against the accused persons-revisionists to the hilt. There remains no doubt about the guilt of the convict-revisionists. There is no illegality in the concurrent findings of the court below. No interference is thus called for in the same. 12) Both the criminal revisions preferred by the accused persons-revisionists are, accordingly, dismissed. The conviction awarded to the convicts, as also the sentences awarded to them are hereby affirmed. Both the accused-revisionists are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. There is no illegality in the concurrent findings of the court below. No interference is thus called for in the same. 12) Both the criminal revisions preferred by the accused persons-revisionists are, accordingly, dismissed. The conviction awarded to the convicts, as also the sentences awarded to them are hereby affirmed. Both the accused-revisionists are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. They are directed to surrender forthwith before the court concerned to receive the sentences as were awarded to them by the court below and thus affirmed by this Court. 13) Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the lower court records be sent to the Court below for ensuring compliance.