JUDGMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.3.2013 and order of conviction dated 11.3.2013 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.11/7 of 2012, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, while the appellant along with Sheela Devi and Tarsema Chaudhary have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 313 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. He was further ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years along with fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The period of detention undergone by him was set off against the sentence of imprisonment. In lieu of default in making the payment of fine amount, he was further ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months and one month respectively under both counts, i.e. under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the matter was reported on 21.11.2011 by the prosecutrix (PW1) to the Police Post Namhol along with her father, Roshan Lal (PW3), mother Sukh Dei (PW2) and brother-in-law Gopal Krishan. The information was reduced to Rapat, i.e. PW7/A. Ex. PW7/A was sent to the Police Station Barmana, on the basis of which an FIR, Ext. PW19/A was registered. According to the prosecutrix, on 10.8.2011 she was all alone in her house. Her parents had gone out in connection with work. Her mother was working as helper in Govt. Primary School, Dib and her father was a casual labourer. The appellant, Dharampal, was running a shop at a place known as ‘Dagsech’ on National Highway-88. The parents of the prosecutrix used to take grocery and other articles on credit basis from the shop of the appellant. On 10.8.2011 at about 1.30 P.M., she went to the shop of the appellant for taking rubber, pencils, pen, Nirma and mustard oil. She was given rubber, pencils, copies by the appellant. The parents of the prosecutrix used to take grocery and other articles on credit basis from the shop of the appellant. On 10.8.2011 at about 1.30 P.M., she went to the shop of the appellant for taking rubber, pencils, pen, Nirma and mustard oil. She was given rubber, pencils, copies by the appellant. However, she was sent by the appellant to bring Nirma and mustard oil from another room. When she went in the room to take Nirma and mustard oil, the appellant at once closed the shutter of the shop and came in the inner room. The prosecutrix asked why shutter was closed. She cried ‘Bhabi-Bhabi’. The appellant said her to stop crying. When she tried to open the shutter, the appellant caught hold of her arms and laid her on the floor. Her mouth was gagged by one hand and with another hand string of her ‘salwar’ was broken. Thereafter, the appellant forcibly put his private part in her private part and she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse against her will. She was helpless being minor. Further, the appellant threatened her to kill along with her family if she would disclose the matter to anybody. Due to fear, she did not disclose the matter. On 15.11.2011, she disclosed to her mother that her menses have stopped for the last 2-3 months and then narrated the entire incident to her mother. On that day, father of the prosecutrix had gone to attend the marriage. On reporting the matter, the Investigating Officer (PW21) sent her to hospital for medical examination along with L.C. Shabana. She was medically examined by Dr. Kavita Kumari (PW11) on 21.11.2011 at 9.30 A.M.. She (PW11) advised urine test for pregnancy, USG for the period of gestation/product of conception and X-rays for the determination of the age of the prosecutrix. On 29.11.2011, urine test for pregnancy was found positive. PW11 gave final opinion on 30.11.2011 stating that as per Gynecologist opinion, the prosecutrix was pregnant and aborted before 25.11.2011. The appellant was arrested. He was medically examined. Supplementary statements of the prosecutrix and her mother were recorded. According to their supplementary statements, on 15.11.2011 when the prosecutrix disclosed the incident to her mother, she (PW2) went to the appellant and his wife Sheela Devi. The appellant was arrested. He was medically examined. Supplementary statements of the prosecutrix and her mother were recorded. According to their supplementary statements, on 15.11.2011 when the prosecutrix disclosed the incident to her mother, she (PW2) went to the appellant and his wife Sheela Devi. They assured to get the prosecutrix checked up and the in the intervening night of 18/19.11.2011 both the appellant and Sheela Devi had taken the prosecutrix along with her mother to the clinic at Bada-da-Ghat, where abortion of the prosecutrix was done by Dr. Tarsema Chaudhary. The demarcation of the clinic was also undertaken on 6.12.2011. The birth certificate of prosecutrix Ext. PW4/B along with copy of Pariwar Register, Ext.PW4/C was obtained. The matter was investigated and the challan in the Court was filed after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses. The learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code with fine, while the appellant, Sheela Devi and Dr. Tarsema Chaudhary were acquitted for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 313 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as stated hereinabove. 4. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant. According to him, it was a consensual act. He then argued that the FIR was filed belatedly and the delay has not been explained. 5. Mr. Parmod Thakur, Addl. Advocate General, supported the impugned judgment dated 7.3.2013 and order of conviction dated 11.3.2013. 6. PW1, the prosecutrix has deposed that her father is a casual labourer. On 10.8.2011, at about 1.30-2.00 P.M. she had gone to the shop of the appellant for taking rubber, pencils, pen, Nirma and mustard oil. He gave her rubber, pencils, copies. He told her that mustard oil and Nirma were in the another room. He sent her to bring Nirma and mustard oil from another room. When she went in the another room, the appellant came after her and closed the shutter. She objected. He caught hold of her arms and laid down her on the floor. He gagged her moth by putting one hand on her mouth and with another hand he pulled out string of her ‘salwar’ and broke the same. When she went in the another room, the appellant came after her and closed the shutter. She objected. He caught hold of her arms and laid down her on the floor. He gagged her moth by putting one hand on her mouth and with another hand he pulled out string of her ‘salwar’ and broke the same. Thereafter, he committee bad act (rape) with her. The appellant committed sexual intercourse against her will. According to her, the accused threatened her to kill, if she disclosed the incident to anybody. The appellant also threatened her brother, who is physically challenged. After two-two and half months, her menses stopped. The appellant and his wife Sheela administered some medicine to her, which resulted in severe stomach ache and thereafter, bleeding started. Thereafter, she disclosed the matter to her mother narrating the incident about rape committed on her by the appellant as well as that the appellant and his wife administered her some medicines. Her mother then went to the house of the appellant. The appellant felt sorry. The appellant and his wife Sheela took the prosecutrix along with her mother to Bhararighat towards Shimla side. She was unconscious. Her mother did not agree and then they came back to home. She reported the matter to the police on which Rapat Mark X was lodged. Severe bleeding continued and some pieces also came out with bleeding. According to her, she was not got checked up by the appellant and Sheela from any doctor. At this stage, the prosecutrix was declared hostile. She denied that she was taken to clinic of Tarsema Chaudhary at Bhararighat by the appellant and Sheela Devi. She also denied that Tarsema gave her some medicines and injection in the clinic. She also denied that she led police party to the clinic. She admitted her signatures of Far, Ext. PW1/A. Her mother had also signed on Ext. PW1/A. She volunteered that their signatures were taken by the police on the pretext that the case would be weakened, if they did not sign the papers. In her cross-examination, she testified that in the year 2011, she was studying in 9th Class. She was born on 18.12.1994. She studied upto 5th Standard Dib School and thereafter from 6th to 8th Standard in Government Middle School, Palog. She failed once in 8th Standard. She was regular student of 9th Class on 10.8.2011. In her cross-examination, she testified that in the year 2011, she was studying in 9th Class. She was born on 18.12.1994. She studied upto 5th Standard Dib School and thereafter from 6th to 8th Standard in Government Middle School, Palog. She failed once in 8th Standard. She was regular student of 9th Class on 10.8.2011. Final examination of 9th class had taken place in March 2012. She failed. She appeared as a private candidate in the matriculation examination directly after passing 8th class. According to her, she was regular visitor to the shop of the appellant. She went to the shop and straightway asked for the articles. They used to take articles from the shop on credit basis and the appellant used to make entry of the articles in the note book. She admitted that 2-3 persons were also present in the shop, when she reached there. She volunteered that they had gone away after taking the articles. She was confined in the shop by closing shutter for about 20-25 minutes. She did not put the broken string in her salwar at the spot and came out by holding salwar with her hand and then on the way, she took one wooden stick and put the string in her salwar. Sexual intercourse lasted for 20-25 minutes. Blood oozed out from her private part. Her salwar got blood stained. She washed her blood stained clothes in her house. She was laid down on the floor without any gunny bag lying on the floor. She made struggle with her hand. After the incident, she visited the shop of the appellant, but never went inside. No quarrel had taken place with the appellant after the incident. The appellant gave her medicines in his shop. She took medicines given by the appellant after elapse of two menstrual cycles, i.e. for the months of August and September. Bleeding started after 4-5 days after taking medicines. She was acquainted with the appellant for many years. She did not disclose the incident to her mother nor had she shown the clothes to her. Volunteered that she was threatened by the appellant not to disclose the matter. She went to the school after 2-3 days of the incident. She disclosed the incident for the time on 15.11.2011. The matter was also disclosed to brother-in-law, Gopal Krishan on the same day by her and her mother. Volunteered that she was threatened by the appellant not to disclose the matter. She went to the school after 2-3 days of the incident. She disclosed the incident for the time on 15.11.2011. The matter was also disclosed to brother-in-law, Gopal Krishan on the same day by her and her mother. She denied that she went in the adjoining room of the shop of the appellant with her free will. She has denied the suggestion that sexual intercourse had taken place with her consent. She has further denied the suggestion that she did not disclose the incident intentionally to her mother. She did not mention name of Tarsema Chaudhary to the police in her statement. 7. PW2, Sukh Devi, mother of the prosecutrix, has testified that her daughter disclosed that she was having stomach ache. When she asked the reason, then she disclosed the incident of rape committed on her by the appellant. She went to the appellant. The appellant told her that he would give some medicines to the prosecutrix. She was declared hostile as far as the fact about going to clinic of Tarsema Chaudhary is concerned. She deposed that her daughter disclosed to her on 15.11.2011 that her menses stopped two months before in the month of September 2011. She has admitted that when she inquired the reason for this, the prosecutrix disclosed to her that the appellant committee rape on her on 10.8.2011. She has also admitted that the prosecutrix also disclosed to her that the appellant had threatened her to kill if she would disclose the matter to any one. She has also admitted that she went to the appellant, he had admitted the guilt and felt sorry for that. She has also admitted that she disclosed the matter to her husband on 18.11.2011. She has also admitted that on 19.11.2011 the appellant and Sheela Devi had taken the prosecutrix for medical check up along with her. She has denied that they were taken by the appellant and his wife to Tarsema Chaudhary clinic at Bharari. She has also denied that Tarsema Chaudhary gave medicines and injection to the prosecutrix on account of which, bleeding ceased. She has admitted that on 21.11.2011 she along with the prosecutrix, her son-in-law and her husband went to Police Post Namhol to report the matter, on which rapat Mark X was lodged. She has also denied that Tarsema Chaudhary gave medicines and injection to the prosecutrix on account of which, bleeding ceased. She has admitted that on 21.11.2011 she along with the prosecutrix, her son-in-law and her husband went to Police Post Namhol to report the matter, on which rapat Mark X was lodged. Her daughter did not disclose the incident of rape to her prior to the day when she disclosed about bleeding. The prosecutrix disclosed her that ‘jaifal’ was given to her. She did not report the matter between 15.11.2011 to 21.11.2011. During those days, there was marriage of her nephew. She did not disclose about the matter before 15.11.2011. 8. PW3, Rattan Lal, father of the prosecutrix, has deposed that her daughter was aged about 16 years in August 2011. His daughter had disclosed to him that the appellant had committed rape on her. He again stated that this thing was disclosed to him by his wife. His wife sent to the appellant, who told that he would take my daughter to doctor. His wife also disclosed to him that the appellant and Sheela took his daughter along with his wife to Bhararighat. They were not taken to any doctor. At this stage, PW3 was also declared hostile. He has admitted that his wife disclosed to him that on 10.8.2011 the appellant committed rape on the prosecutrix. He admitted that his daughter did not disclose anything about the incident to him. 9. PW4, Jagdish Kumar, has proved birth certificate of the prosecutrix, Ext. PW4/B and copy of pariwar register, part-I, Ext. PW4/C. 10. PW5, Sanjeev Kumar, has deposed that on 6.11.2011, MHC handed over to him one sealed parcel having sealed with seal N for depositing the same with the Police Station Barmana. 11. PW6, Bhagirath, has deposed that he had gone to Veterinary Hospital Bharari. He took medicine from the hospital and met Pardhan Karta singh Chaudhary. PW6 was also declared hostile. 12. PW7, Constable Shiv Ram, has testified that on 21.11.2011, the prosecutrix came to police post along with her father, mother Sukh Devi and brother-in-law Gopal for reporting the matter. Rapat Mark X, ow Ext. PW7/A was entered by him. 13. PW8, Jeet Ram, Patwari, has testified that he had visited the spot and prepared Tatima, Ext. PW8/B. 14. 12. PW7, Constable Shiv Ram, has testified that on 21.11.2011, the prosecutrix came to police post along with her father, mother Sukh Devi and brother-in-law Gopal for reporting the matter. Rapat Mark X, ow Ext. PW7/A was entered by him. 13. PW8, Jeet Ram, Patwari, has testified that he had visited the spot and prepared Tatima, Ext. PW8/B. 14. PW9, HHC Dhani Ram, has deposed that he took three sealed parcels from Regional Hospital Bilaspur, handed over to him by Dr.S. Sharad. The parcels were sealed with seal Himachal Pradesh Kashetriya Parishad Janta Janardhan. He deposited the entire case property along with envelopes with sample seal wit MHC Roshan Lal of Police Station Barmana. 15. PW10 Mohinder Kumar has deposed that vehicle bearing No. HP-23B-0594 is registered in his father’s name. The appellant and Sheela did not hire his vehicle. PW10 was also declared hostile. 16. PW11, Dr. Kavita Kumari, has deposed that police moved an application Ext. PW11/A for medical examination of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was brought with alleged history of rape 3 months 10 days earlier by some one followed by pregnancy followed by D&E (dilation and evacuation) two days earlier. She advised urine test for pregnancy, USG for the period of gestation/product of conception and X-rays for the determination of the age of the prosecutrix. Preserved material was handed over the police for chemical analysis. On 29.11.2011, urine test for pregnancy was found positive. According to her, as per Gynecologist opinion, the prosecutrix was pregnant and aborted before 25.11.2011. She issued MLC Ext. PW11/B. She has admitted in cross-examination, the prosecutrix did not disclose anything about abortion. She has also admitted that neither the prosecutrix nor her mother disclosed to her that bleeding was going for about one month. She has also admitted that the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse. She did not prescribe any medicine for stopping the bleeding. She has admitted the suggestion that abortion of pregnancy having child three months and 10 days old cannot take place simply on the basis of medicines. However, she volunteered that spontaneous abortion can taken place. She could not find clinically that an induced abortion had taken place. 17. PW12, Dr. Jyoti Vaidya, has deposed that on 25.11.2011, the prosecutrix was referred to her for ultra sound from Regional Hospital, Bilaspur. Ultra sound examination was undertaken by her. She has proved report Ext. However, she volunteered that spontaneous abortion can taken place. She could not find clinically that an induced abortion had taken place. 17. PW12, Dr. Jyoti Vaidya, has deposed that on 25.11.2011, the prosecutrix was referred to her for ultra sound from Regional Hospital, Bilaspur. Ultra sound examination was undertaken by her. She has proved report Ext. PW12/A and ultra sound films, Ext. PW12/B and PW12/C. She could not say exactly about the decrease in size of uterus after termination of pregnancy till her examination. 18. PW13, H.C. Roshan Lal, has testified that on 25.11.2011 HHC Dhani Ram No. 185, deposited three sealed parcels containing seal of H.P. Kashertiya Parishad Janta Janardhan to him. On 29.11.2011, the case property was sent to RFSL Gutkar vide R.C. No. 170/11. 19. PW14, Constable Suneel Kumar, has deposed that on 29.11.2011 HC Roshan Lal handed over to him three sealed parcels containing seal of H.P. Kashetriya Parishad Janta Janardhan. He deposited the case property with RFSL Gutkar on the same day and receipt was handed over to MHC. 20. PW15, Dr. Anoop Sharma, has deposed that on 29.11.2011, USG report dated 25.11.2011 came for his opinion from Zonal Hospital, Mandi. According to the report, uterus measured 9.6 X 3.5 X 4.9 cms. No gestation sac was seen in the uterus, which meant that the patient had abortion before 25.11.2011. 21. PW16, Dr. S. Sharad, has examined the appellant. He has proved MLC, Ext.PW16/A and RFSL report, Ext. PW16/B. 22. PW17, Sandeep Sharma, has deposed that he is running a medical store at Badadanghat. He is known to Tarsema Chaudhary and her husband. He did not know the qualification of Tarsema Chaudhary. He was also declared hostile. 23. PW18, L.C. Maya Devi has deposed that the prosecutrix disclosed before the police that she was taken in the intervening night of 18/19.11.2011 by the appellant and Sheela and she was administered medicines and given one injection by some lady. She did not disclose the name of that lady. Fard Nishandehi Ext.PW1/A was prepared. She was also declared hostile. 24. PW19, ASI Amar Nath, has proved the registration of the FIR, Ext. PW19/A. 25. PW20, S.I. Govind Ram, has prepared the challan and presented the same in the court. 26. She did not disclose the name of that lady. Fard Nishandehi Ext.PW1/A was prepared. She was also declared hostile. 24. PW19, ASI Amar Nath, has proved the registration of the FIR, Ext. PW19/A. 25. PW20, S.I. Govind Ram, has prepared the challan and presented the same in the court. 26. PW21 ASI Gandhi Ram, I.O., has deposed that on 21.11.2011 the prosecutrix, along with her father Rattan Lal, mother Sukh Devi and brother-in-law Gopal came to the Police Post to report the matter, on which rapat Ext.PW7/A was entered by Munshi Shiv Ram. Information was sent to the police Station on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW19/A was registered. The prosecutrix was medically examined. The appellant was arrested. He was got medically examined and MLC Ext.PW16/A was obtained. MLC of the prosecutrix Ext.PW11/B was also obtained. On 6.12.20111, demarcation Ext. PW1/A was prepared. Recovery memo Ext. PW21/C was prepared. He recorded the statements of the prosecutrix Ext. PW21/D, Sukh Devi Ext. PW21/E, Rattan Lal Ext. PW21/F and supplementary statements of Sukh Devi Ext. PW21/G, Maya Devi Ext.PW21/H, Mohinder Kumar Ext.PW21/J, Bhagirath Ext. PW21/K as per their respective versions. Tarsema Chaudhary and Sheela Devi were associated during investigation. The prosecutrix and Sukh Dei came to the police post on 21.11.2011 at about 4.45 P.M. He immediately recorded the statement of the prosecutrix. It took about 45 minutes. He found the appellant in his shop at 8.30 P.M. The prosecutrix did not disclose to him that abortion had taken place in the month of September. The prosecutrix did not disclose to her in the police post that the appellant administered her some medicines due to which abortion had taken place in the month of September. 27. PW22, Dr. S.P. Gandhi, has deposed that a letter, dated 10.2.2012 Ext. PW22/A was received by him from District Ayurvedic Officer, Bilaspur for expert opinion regarding effects of Satawari powder and Ambla powder in pregnancy. As per his opinion, Satawari powder and Ambla powder do not cause abortion, rather these two medicines are actually beneficial in pregnancy. 28. This is the entire evidence led by the parties. 29. What emerges from the evidence is that the prosecutrix was born on 6.3.1995, as per Ext. PW4/B, though according to the statement of the prosecutrix she was born on 18.12.1994. 28. This is the entire evidence led by the parties. 29. What emerges from the evidence is that the prosecutrix was born on 6.3.1995, as per Ext. PW4/B, though according to the statement of the prosecutrix she was born on 18.12.1994. On 10.8.2011, at about 1.30-2.00 P.M. she had gone to the shop of the appellant for taking rubber, pencils, pen, Nirma and mustard oil. She was supplied rubber, pencil, copies by the appellant. She was told by the appellant to get mustard oil and Nirma from the adjoining room. The prosecutrix went to the adjoining room. She was followed by the appellant. The appellant closed the shutter of the shop. He made her lie on the floor and committed sexual intercourse with her. She cried, but no one heard her cries. The appellant threatened her not to disclose the matter to anyone. According to the prosecutrix, even her physically challenged brother was also threatened by the appellant. The father of the prosecutrix is working as daily waged labourer. Initially, the prosecutrix did not narrate the incident to anyone due to fear. She was administered some medicine by the appellant, which led to severe stomach ache and bleeding. It is only at this stage, she disclosed the incident to her mother that the appellant had committed rape on her. PW2, mother of the prosecutrix, has also supported the version of PW1. According to her, the prosecutrix disclosed to her that she was having stomach ache. When she asked the reason, then the prosecutrix disclosed the incident of rape committed on her by the appellant. She went to the appellant, who told her that he would give some medicine to the prosecutrix. PW3, Rattan Lal, father of the prosecutrix has also deposed that the appellant had raped the prosecutrix. PW4, Jagdish Kumar, as noticed above, has proved on record the birth certificate of the prosecutrix, Ext. PW4/B, and the pariwar register, Ext.PW4/C. PW11, Dr. Kavita Kumari had issued MLC Ext. PW11/B. She advised urine test for pregnancy and USG for the period of gestation/product of conception and X-rays for the determination of the age of the prosecutrix. According to her, as per the Gynecologist opinion, dated 30.11.2011 the prosecutrix was pregnant and aborted before 25.11.2011. PW15, Dr. Anoop Sharma, Gynecologist, deposed that as per USG report, gestation sac was not found, meaning thereby that the prosecutrix had aborted before 25.11.2011. 30. According to her, as per the Gynecologist opinion, dated 30.11.2011 the prosecutrix was pregnant and aborted before 25.11.2011. PW15, Dr. Anoop Sharma, Gynecologist, deposed that as per USG report, gestation sac was not found, meaning thereby that the prosecutrix had aborted before 25.11.2011. 30. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate, has vehemently argued that it was a consensual act. This plea cannot be accepted. The prosecutrix had categorically stated that on asking of the appellant, she went in the adjoining room to get Nirma and mustard oil. All of a sudden, the appellant came after her and closed the shutter of the shop. She objected to the closing of the shutter. He caught hold of her arms and laid down her on the floor. After gagging her mouth by putting hand and breaking string of her ‘salwar’, the appellant committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly, against her will. The prosecutrix did not narrate the incident to anyone because the appellant threatened to kill her, if she disclosed the incident to anybody. The appellant also threatened her physically challenged brother. After two-three months, when her menses were stopped, the appellant administered some medicine to her, which resulted in severe stomach ache, leading to bleeding. The statement of the prosecutrix is consistent, reliable and inspires confidence. There are no major contradictions in the statements of PW1, PW2 and PW3. 31. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, has argued that the prosecutrix has been declared hostile. The prosecutrix has been declared hostile only to the extent that she was not taken to the clinic of Dr. Tarsema Chaudhary. She has categorically stated that sexual intercourse was committed by the appellant against her will. 32. According to Mr. Anoop Chitkara, it has come in the statement of PW11 that the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix may be habitual to sexual intercourse, but it did not give any right to the appellant to commit rape on her. There is no enmity between the appellant and prosecutrix, so as to implicate the appellant falsely, who is a married man having five children. 33. Now as far as delay in registering the FIR is concerned, it has come on record that the appellant threatened the prosecutrix not to disclose the incident to anyone. He also threatened his physically challenged brother not to disclose the incident. The prosecutrix was school going girl. 33. Now as far as delay in registering the FIR is concerned, it has come on record that the appellant threatened the prosecutrix not to disclose the incident to anyone. He also threatened his physically challenged brother not to disclose the incident. The prosecutrix was school going girl. She could not disclose the incident immediately to anyone due to public shame and fear. She disclosed the incident to her mother when she was administered medicine by the appellant, which lead to profuse bleeding and stomach ache. The, delay in lodging the FIR has been duly explained by the prosecution. 34. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. vs. Gian Chand, (2001) 6 SCC 71 have held that the delay by itself is not fatal to the prosecution case, but requires satisfactory explanation. Their Lordships have held as under:- 12. Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the First Information Report. Delay has the effect of putting the Court in its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is a possibility of embellishment in prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case. In the present case, P.W. 1 the mother of the prosecutrix is a widow. The accused is a close relation of brother of late husband of P.W. 1. P.W. 1 obviously needed her family members consisting of her in-laws to accompany her or at least help her in lodging the First Information Report at the police station. The incident having occurred in a village, the approach of the in-laws of P.W. 1 displayed rusticity in first calling upon the father of the accused and complaining to him of what has son had done. It remained an unpleasant family affair on the next day of the incident which was tried to be settled, if it could be, within the walls of family. That failed. It remained an unpleasant family affair on the next day of the incident which was tried to be settled, if it could be, within the walls of family. That failed. It is thereafter only that the complainant, the widow woman, left all by herself and having no male family member willing to accompany her, proceeded alone to police station. She was lent moral support by Ruldu Ram, the village Panch, whereupon the report of the incident was lodged. The sequence of events soon following the crime and as described by the prosecution witnesses sounds quite natural and provides a satisfactory explanation for the delay. It was found to be so by the learned Sessions Judge. The High Court has not looked into the explanation offered and very superficially recorded a finding of the delay having remained "unexplained" and hence fatal to the prosecution case. It is common knowledge and also judicially noted fact that incidents like rape, moreso when the perpetrator of the crime happens to be a member of the family or related therewith, involve the honour of the family and, therefore, there is a reluctance on the part of the family of the victim to report the matter to the police and carry the same to the Court. A cool thought may precede lodging of the FIR. Such are the observations found to have been made by this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384 : (1996 AIR SCW 998 : AIR 1996 SC 1393 : 1996 Cri LJ 1728) and also in the case of Harpal Singh v. State of Him. Pra., 1981 SCC (Cri) 208 : ( AIR 1981 SC 361 : 1981 Cri LJ 1). We are satisfied that the delay in making the FIR has been satisfactorily explained and, therefore, does not cause any dent in the prosecution case.” 35. Similarly, their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanhaiya Lal and ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 655 have held that a delayed FIR can usher in craftsmanship, manipulation and embellishment and may make the prosecution story vulnerable, but when the delay has been adequately explained, the same deserves to be accepted. 36. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh vs. State of M.P. (2013) 7 SCC 89 , have explained the term “against her will” and “without her consent”. 36. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh vs. State of M.P. (2013) 7 SCC 89 , have explained the term “against her will” and “without her consent”. Their Lordships have held as under: “10. Thus, unless there is voluntary participation by the woman to a sexual act after fully exercising the choice in favour of assent, the court cannot hold that the woman gave consent to the sexual intercourse. From the evidence of PW4 and PW5 discussed above, we cannot hold that PW5 voluntarily participated in the sexual intercourse with the appellant after fully exercising her choice in favour of assent.” 37. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Md. Iqbal and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand, JT 2013 (10) SC 53, have held that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be relied upon for conviction and there is no legal requirement to find corroboration from other witnesses. Their Lordships have held as under:- “14. There is no prohibition in law to convict the accused of rape on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix and the law does not require that her statement be corroborated by the statements of other witnesses.” 38. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate, has placed reliance on Dilip and another vs. State of M.P., (2001) 9 SCC 452 . In this case, their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that it is well settled that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix could be acted upon and made the basis of conviction without being corroborated in the material particulars. However, the rule about the admissibility of corroboration should not be ignored by the courts in sexual offences. In this case, the infirmities were found existing in the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, which were contradicted by the medical evidence as well as version given by PW3 to whom the prosecutrix narrated the incident soon after the commission of rape. In the case in hand, there is no infirmity in the statement of the prosecutrix. Her version has been duly supported by her mother, PW2. 39. Mr. Anoop Chitkara has also relied on Surja and others vs. State of M.P., (2002) (10) SCC 214. This judgment is distinguishable from the instant case. In this case, prosecutrix’s statement did not inspire confidence and delay in filing the FIR by 10 days was not explained. Her version has been duly supported by her mother, PW2. 39. Mr. Anoop Chitkara has also relied on Surja and others vs. State of M.P., (2002) (10) SCC 214. This judgment is distinguishable from the instant case. In this case, prosecutrix’s statement did not inspire confidence and delay in filing the FIR by 10 days was not explained. In the present case, the statement of the prosecutrix is consistent, natural and reliable. The delay in filing the FIR has been satisfactorily explained. He has also placed reliance upon Rai Sandeep alias Deepu vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21 . This case is also distinguishable. In this case conflicting version was given by the prosecutrix. In the present case, statement of the prosecutrix is consistent and natural. The statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence. 40. Accordingly, in view of the discussions and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.