JUDGMENT : SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. convict Deep Raj has assailed the judgment dated 29.4.2013, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.1/7 of 2013, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Deep Raj @ Baddu, whereby he stands convicted of having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and pay fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default thereof, further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 27th August, 2012, prosecutrix (PW.2) went to the house of Achla Devi (not examined) for getting her clothes stitched. Though Achla Devi was not home but her real brother i.e. the accused was present alone in the house. At that time he forcibly raped the prosecutrix. In the neighbourhood, Fullan Devi (PW.4) had called ladies of the village for collecting fuel wood. Her daughter was to get married. From courtyard of house of Fullan Devi, Parkasho Devi (PW.3), saw the prosecutrix hiding under the cot covered with a bed-sheet. Since room was bolted from inside she knocked the door. After opening the door accused ran away from the spot. Prosecutrix then narrated the incident to her. When prosecutrix was taken home, she also narrated the incident to her mother Viasan Devi (PW.1). Matter was reported to the police and FIR No.62/2012, dated 28.8.2012 (Ext.PW.1/A) registered at Police Station, Bharari, against the accused under the provisions of Section 376A of the Indian Penal Code. Investigating Officer, Dhan Raj Singh (PW.17) got the prosecutrix medically examined from Dr. Kavita Kumari (PW.10), who issued MLC (Ext.PW-10/C). For establishing age of the prosecutrix, her birth certificate (Ext.PW.11/B) was taken on record. Investigation revealed the accused to have subjected the prosecutrix to sexual assault and as such challan was presented in the court for trial. 3. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as twenty one witnesses. 3. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as twenty one witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he took plea of innocence and false implication. Both Fullan Devi and Parkasho Devi harboured animosity against Achla Devi, hence stands falsely implicated but no evidence in defence was led to probablise this defence. 5. Trial Court, after appreciating the testimony of prosecution witnesses, convicted the accused of the charged offence and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Having heard Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.S. Verma, learned Addl. Advocate General, on behalf of the State and minutely examined the testimonies of witnesses and other documentary evidence so placed on record by the parties, one is of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. Judgment rendered by the trial court is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) as placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting in miscarriage of justice. Prosecution has been able to fully establish and prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt. 7. In Court, Dr. Kavita Kumari (PW-10) proved MLC (Ext.PW-10/C) and opined that possibility of rape could not be ruled out. Her opinion is based on report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, analysis of clothes; vaginal swab; pubic hair of the victim as also the assailant. 8. It is vehemently argued that the victim consented for the act and as such accused stands wrongly convicted by the trial court. Significantly, no such suggestion was ever put to any one of the prosecution witnesses. Hence, contention only merits rejection. 9. Nonetheless, notwithstanding medical evidence on record, Court is duty bound, in the first appeal, to fully appreciate the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, for ascertaining the truth and finding out as to whether prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt or not. 10. Hence, contention only merits rejection. 9. Nonetheless, notwithstanding medical evidence on record, Court is duty bound, in the first appeal, to fully appreciate the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, for ascertaining the truth and finding out as to whether prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt or not. 10. On the question of age of the prosecutrix, which in any event is not disputed, Rekha Kumari (PW.11) has proved certificate (Ext.PW.11/B) recording date of birth in the school record to be 6th October, 1994. As such, as on the date of incident of crime i.e. 27.8.2012, prosecutrix was below eighteen years, but above sixteen years. 11. Perusal of testimonies of prosecution witnesses further reveals that prosecutrix was mentally not fully developed. She was of feeble mind. Testimonies of Viasan Devi (PW.1) and Bimla Devi (PW.5) on this count go unrebutted. Furthermore, Yoginder Lal (PW.18), Managing Director of Asha Kiran Viklang Shiksha institution has proved certificate (Ext.PW.18/A) to the effect that prosecutrix, who was mentally retarded remained admitted with them for some time. 12. In Court prosecutrix was found competent to depose and as such was examined. She categorically states that after bolting the door from inside, accused removed her clothes and committed “bad act” with her in the house of Rikhu Ram (husband of Achla Devi). She identifies the accused as Baddu. Noticeably there is no dispute about such identity. She further states that Fullan and Parkasho got opened the door of the room and Baddu ran away. She clarifies that she had gone to the house of Rikhu for getting her clothes stitched. Significantly, it stands suggested to the witness that women had gone for collecting wood required for the marriage ceremony of daughter of Fullan Devi. She denies having deposed falsely on account of any tutoring done by her mother. In fact she has no reason to depose falsely. Her testimony fully inspiring in confidence, is narration of true events which transpired on the spot and nothing else. She is candid, clear and truthful. 13. Fullan Devi (PW.4), who corroborates such version, further clarifies that at the time when she was cleaning the courtyard, sound was coming from the adjoining house belonging of Achla Devi. Parkasho Devi (PW.3) peeped from the window and saw the prosecutrix lying under the cot covered with a bed sheet. Room was bolted from inside. 13. Fullan Devi (PW.4), who corroborates such version, further clarifies that at the time when she was cleaning the courtyard, sound was coming from the adjoining house belonging of Achla Devi. Parkasho Devi (PW.3) peeped from the window and saw the prosecutrix lying under the cot covered with a bed sheet. Room was bolted from inside. When Parkasho Devi knocked at the door, accused opened and ran away. Prosecutrix disclosed that accused committed “Bura Kam” (rape). Then she took the prosecutrix home. Though witness admits of having dispute with Achla Devi pertaining to construction of house but clarifies it was over long ago. Suggestion put to the witness that house of Achla Devi did not have window panes, does not advance the case of convict in any manner. He ran away from the spot after ravishing a helpless person who was frightened and overawed. 14. Though initially Parkasho Devi (PW.3) did not support the prosecution, but on being cross examined by the Public Prosecutor, corroborated the testimony of both the prosecutrix and Fullan Devi. She admits her presence on the spot. She admits that prosecutrix was under the cot on which accused was sitting. Thus she proves presence of both the accused and the prosecutrix inside the room. She also proves that at the time door was opened by the accused only he and prosecutrix were inside. Achla Devi and her husband were not home at that time. 15. Viasan Devi (PW.1) clarifies that prosecutrix, who had gone to the house of Achla Devi for getting the suit stitched, on return, disclosed the incident to her. She clarifies that accused is also known as Baddu, which fact, in any case is not in dispute. She clarifies that the following morning she went to the police station and reported the matter. She satisfactorily explains the reasons for not visiting the police station same day. She has studied only up to 8th standard; her husband was not home and it had become dark. She denies having falsely deposed on the asking of Fullan Devi. In any event, why would she do so. No mother would defame her daughter on the asking of a third person, especially when she was under no obligation from her. In any event, Pradhan Bimla Devi (PW.5) was informed of the incident. Also it becomes duty of the spot witnesses to report the matter to the police. In any event, why would she do so. No mother would defame her daughter on the asking of a third person, especially when she was under no obligation from her. In any event, Pradhan Bimla Devi (PW.5) was informed of the incident. Also it becomes duty of the spot witnesses to report the matter to the police. Delay cannot be said to be fatal. 16. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar (PW.7), aged fourteen years, brother of the prosecutrix further corroborates the prosecution story. 17. Prem Lal (PW.6), one of the persons present on the spot, who though resiled from his previous statement (Ext.PW.17/J) but when confronted by the Public Prosecutor, admits of having learnt that prosecutrix stood raped by the accused. 18. It is rather unfortunate that Amar Singh (PW.12), father of the prosecutrix, after being declared hostile, had to be cross examined by the Public Prosecutor. Nonetheless he also admits that prosecutrix, who is of feeble mind, was raped by the accused. 19. Remaining witnesses are either police officials or witnesses to recovery of incriminating articles. In view of inspiring testimony of the prosecutrix and the spot witnesses one need not elaborately deal with their testimonies save and except that testimony of the Investigating Officer, S.I. Dhan Raj Singh (PW.17) of having conducted the investigation, which cannot be faulted on any count, is fully inspiring in confidence. He has proved on record previous statements of the witnesses, who did not support the prosecution on material facts. 20. Submission that hymen was intact and no injury or tenderness was found on the vaginal part of the prosecutrix and as such, the charged offence is not proved, only merits rejection. It is a settled principle of law that statement of the prosecutrix by itself is sufficient enough to convict the accused, if it otherwise inspires confidence even if it is not supported by contemporaneous corroborative material in the shape of medical evidence. One cannot lose sight of the fact that prosecutrix was of feeble mind and as such under these circumstances could not resist the overt acts of the accused. She was found hidden under the cot. Presence of hymen itself does not disprove an act of penetration. 21. It is further argued that absence of non-compliance of provisions of Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure would render the prosecution case to be fatal. Dr. She was found hidden under the cot. Presence of hymen itself does not disprove an act of penetration. 21. It is further argued that absence of non-compliance of provisions of Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure would render the prosecution case to be fatal. Dr. Bhanu Kanwar (PW.9) has proved that the accused was medically examined on 29th August, 2012 and certificate (Ext.PW.9/B) is placed on record to this effect. The contention, misconceived in law, to say the least, only merits rejection. 22. Mere non-compliance of Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, more so with respect to DNA profiling, would not render the investigation to be faulty in any manner, particularly when there is overwhelming evidence on record to establish guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. 23. Thus, from the material placed on record, it stands established by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence, that accused committed an act of rape. 24. For all the aforesaid reasons, no case for interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court is made out. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. There is neither any illegality nor any irregularity/ perversity in correct and complete appreciation of the material so placed on record by the parties. Findings of conviction cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 25. Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under: “53A. Examination of person accused of rape by medical practitioner. Findings of conviction cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 25. Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under: “53A. Examination of person accused of rape by medical practitioner. (1) When a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of rape or an attempt to commit rape and there are reasonable grounds for believing that an examination of his person will afford evidence as to the commission of such offence, it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner employed in a hospital run by the Government or by a local authority and in the absence of such a practitioner within the radius of sixteen kilometers from the place where the offence has been committed by any other registered medical practitioner acting at the request of a police officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector, and for any person acting in good faith in his aid and under his direction, to make such an examination of the arrested person and to use such force as is reasonably necessary for that purpose. (2) The registered medical practitioner conducting such examination shall, without delay, examine such person and prepare a report of his examination giving the following particulars, namely:— (i) the name and address of the accused and of the person by whom he was brought. (ii) the age of the accused. (iii) marks of injury, if any, on the person of the accused. (iv) the description of material taken from the person of the accused for DNA profiling. (v) other material particulars in reasonable detail. (3) The report shall state precisely the reasons for each conclusion arrived at. (4) The exact time of commencement and completion of the examination shall also be noted in the report. (5) The registered medical practitioner shall, without delay, forward the report of the investigating officer, who shall forward it to the Magistrate referred to in section 173 as part of the documents referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (5) of that section.” 26. In view of the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130 , it was absolutely necessary for the prosecution to have got the DNA test conducted, for the purpose of facilitating the prosecution to establish its case against the accused. 27. In view of the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130 , it was absolutely necessary for the prosecution to have got the DNA test conducted, for the purpose of facilitating the prosecution to establish its case against the accused. 27. Single Judge of High Court of Karnataka in Halappa v. State of Karnataka, 2010 Cri.L.J. 4341, had the occasion to deal with the Constitutional validity of provisions of Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court framed the following points, for consideration and answered Points No.1 & 2 in the negative and Point No.3 in the affirmative: “(i) Whether the consent of the petitioner-Accused No.1 is required to draw blood sample from him and for subjecting the same to DNA test? (ii) Whether the consent of the petitioner-Accused No.1 is necessary for taking samples of his pubic hairs and also for obtaining his voice samples and photographs? (iii) Whether the order passed by the trial Court is sustainable in law or not?” 28. The Legislative intent is evidently clear. It appears that the Investigating Agencies are either not aware of the statutory provisions and the duty cast upon them or are obliviously continuing to follow old means and methods of investigation. As such, in the interest of justice, direction is issued to the Director General of Police, State of Himachal Pradesh to issue appropriate directions, asking the Investigating Officers to comply with the statutory provisions in accordance with law. Affidavit of compliance shall be filed by the Director General of Police, State of Himachal Pradesh, within a period of four weeks from today. Records of the Court below be immediately sent back.