JUDGMENT Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. The present Appeal is directed against the judgment and order rendered in Sessions Case No. 85/2010 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar dated 16th September, 2011 recording conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections 363 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code awarding sentenced as stated in detailed in the impugned judgment and order. 2. The facts of the case briefly summarized are as follows: "2.1 As it transpires from the material and evidence on record that the accused is alleged to have taken away/abducted the minor daughter, aged about 7 years, of the complainant when she had gone to fetch the pouch the water. The accused is said to have tempted the victim-girl by offering the cold drink and, thereafter, had taken away on his bicycle, however, as she started crying, he slapped and left the victim-girl, who was thereafter brought to her residence by the owner of stall situated near the road site. Thereafter, the complaint came to be registered as C.R. No. I-81/2010 with Mansa Police Station for the alleged offences under Sections 363, 366, 323, 325 and 75 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.2 After the investigation was over, the chargesheet was filed and as the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions, Gandhinagar. 2.3 Thereafter, the Sessions Judge has proceeded with the trial and recorded the further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2.4 After hearing the learned APP as well as learned advocate for the defence and on appreciation of the evidence, the Sessions Judge recorded the conviction of the accused as stated in the impugned judgment." 3. It is this judgment and order which has been assailed in the present appeal on the ground stated in the memo of appeal. 4. Heard learned advocate, Ms. Khushboo Malkan for the appellant-accused and learned APP Shri H.L. Jani for the respondent-State. 5. Learned advocate, Ms. Malkan referred to the testimony of the witnesses including the testimony of complainant (mother) at Exh. 19 and her complaint at Exh. 20. She also referred to the evidence of minor victim at Exh. 23, PW-8. She also referred to the testimony of PW-9, who brought the victim to her house at Exh. 5. Learned advocate, Ms. Malkan referred to the testimony of the witnesses including the testimony of complainant (mother) at Exh. 19 and her complaint at Exh. 20. She also referred to the evidence of minor victim at Exh. 23, PW-8. She also referred to the testimony of PW-9, who brought the victim to her house at Exh. 24 and also referred to the testimony of other witnesses including the testimony of two doctors at Exh. 8 and 33 respectively. Learned advocate, Ms.Malkan submitted that the prosecution has admittedly not carried out TI parade and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the involvement of the accused in absence of such TI parade. She submitted that the victim as well as other witness, PW-9 has identified the accused in the Court only, which is not sufficient. She also referred to other papers and submitted that there is no evidence to suggest the involvement of the present accused or any identification that he is the person, who had abducted the victim-girl. She therefore submitted that in absence of any evidence to establish that the accused was the same person, who had abducted the victim, the offence is not established. 6. Learned advocate, Ms. Malkan also submitted that in fact, it is on the basis of two earlier cases, he seems to have been falsely implicated and, therefore, the conviction may be set aside. 7. Learned advocate, Ms. Malkan also referred to the complaint at Exh. 20 and testimony of complainant at Exh. 19 and submitted that the incident is of 23.05.2010 and the complaint is registered as FIR on 15.06.2015 and thus, there is delay, for which, no explanation is given. She submitted that there may be delay but there is not explanation and, therefore, false implication may not be ruled out. She also submitted that the Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate this aspect recording conviction. She also referred to the testimony of both doctors and submitted that though it is said that when the accused slapped the victim, her two teeth came out, whereas in the evidence of one doctor, all teeth are in order. She therefore submitted that the present appeal may be allowed. 8. Learned APP Shri Jani, however, referred to the papers and submitted that manner in which the incident or the offence is committed, is required to be considered. She therefore submitted that the present appeal may be allowed. 8. Learned APP Shri Jani, however, referred to the papers and submitted that manner in which the incident or the offence is committed, is required to be considered. He submitted that the victim is a minor girl, who is said to have been sent to fetch pouch of water and from there, she has been abducted by the accused. However when she shouted, he left her near the road side and one shop-keeper having his shop near the road side, has brought her back to her house. He submitted that the victim has clearly stated and identified the accused and similarly, the person, who brought her back (PW-9) has also identified and has also stated that he is the same persons, who used to visit the shop for the purchase of pan-bidi or sundry items and, therefore, when he has been specifically identified and when he has stated that he had visited his shop, it does not leave any doubt of identification of the accused. Learned APP Shri Jani submitted that TI parade is not necessary in every case as other evidence cannot be kept aside merely because TI parade has not been held for whatever reasons. In support of his submissions, learned APP Shri Jani referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashok Debbarama @ Ashok Debbarama v. State of Tripura, reported in 2014 AIR SCW 1628 and submitted that as observed in this judgment referring to earlier judgment reported in AIR 2003 SC 2669 that, "the Test Identification Parade is not a substantive piece of evidence and to hold the Test Identification Parade is not even the rule of law, but a rule of prudence so that the identification of the accused inside the Court room at the trial, can be safely relied upon." 9. Learned APP Shri Jani further submitted that the medical evidence also corroborate the testimony of the victim about the injury. He also referred to the certificate of General Hospital, Gandhinagar at Exh. 9 and submitted that it has reference to toothache. Similarly he referred to the testimony of Dr. Rathod, PW-14, Exh. 33 and the certificate at Exh. 34 corroborating the testimony of victim. Learned APP Shri Jani pointedly referred to Exh. He also referred to the certificate of General Hospital, Gandhinagar at Exh. 9 and submitted that it has reference to toothache. Similarly he referred to the testimony of Dr. Rathod, PW-14, Exh. 33 and the certificate at Exh. 34 corroborating the testimony of victim. Learned APP Shri Jani pointedly referred to Exh. 34, which is a medical certificate of Mansa Community Health Centre, where it has been stated that "Rapture of teeth due to injury". He submitted that therefore she was referred to the dentists at Gandhinagar for opinion. Learned APP Shri Jani has therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and order recording conviction may not be disturbed. 10. Learned APP Shri Jani also strenuously emphasized the observations with regard to the antecedents of the accused and submitted that it is a repeated offence, where he is said to have been habitual for such offence, the conviction recorded is just and proper. He also submitted that it appears that the offence is committed while he was undergoing sentence for such offence when he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. 11. In view of these rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present appeal deserves consideration. 12. As could be seen from the material and evidence, the offence under Sections 363 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code is clearly made out by the testimony of victim, who is a minor girl aged about 7 years. It is required to be stated that the victim has no animosity nor the complainant for any false implication. The victim-girl has identified the accused and has stated as to what had transpired. The aspect of injury caused to her is also corroborated by the medical evidence as stated in detail hereinabove. Therefore when the testimony of the victim is natural and trustworthy corroborated by the medical evidence, the judgment recording conviction does not call for any interference. 13. However much emphasis given on the aspect of TI parade by learned advocate, Ms. Malkan, is misconceived in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in case of Ashok Debbarama @ Ashok Debbarama (supra). 13. However much emphasis given on the aspect of TI parade by learned advocate, Ms. Malkan, is misconceived in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in case of Ashok Debbarama @ Ashok Debbarama (supra). In this judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has focused in Para No. 17 and has made observations, "Above-mentioned decisions would indicate that while the evidence of identification of an accused at a trial is admissible as substantive piece of evidence, would depend on the facts of a given case as to whether or not such a piece of evidence can be relied upon as the sole basis of conviction of an accused. In Malkhansingh v. State of M.P. (2003) 5 SCC 746 , this Court clarified that the Test Identification Parade is not a substantive piece of evidence and to hold the Test Identification Parade is not even the rule of law, but a rule of prudence so that the identification of the accused inside the Court room at the trial, can be safely relied upon. We are of the view that if the witnesses are trustworthy and reliable, the mere fact that no Test Identification Parade was conducted, itself, would not be a reason for discarding the evidence of those witnesses. This Court in Dana Yadav alias Dahu (supra) has examined the points on the law at great length and held that the evidence of identification of an accused in Court by a witness is substantive evidence, whereas identification in Test Identification Parade is, though a primary evidence, but not substantive one and the same can be used only to corroborate the identification of the accused by witness in the Court. So far as the present case is concerned, PW10 and PW13 have identified the accused in open Court which is the substantive piece of evidence and such identification by the eye-witnesses has not been shaken or contradicted. The trial Court examined in detail the oral evidence tendered by those witnesses, which was accepted by the High Court and we find no error in the appreciation of the evidence tendered by those witnesses. (Emphasis Supplied)" This clearly answers the submissions made by learned advocate, Ms.Malkan on the aspect of TI parade. 14. Another facet of submission about the delay in filing complaint, is also misconceived inasmuch as the complainant-mother in her testimony at Exh. (Emphasis Supplied)" This clearly answers the submissions made by learned advocate, Ms.Malkan on the aspect of TI parade. 14. Another facet of submission about the delay in filing complaint, is also misconceived inasmuch as the complainant-mother in her testimony at Exh. 19 has clarified about the delay aspect that when it came to the notice that such incidents have occurred, she has also lodged complaint. Further it is well settled that mere delay in filing the complaint by itself would not be a fetal unless it can be said to be motivated or false. Therefore the submission on the aspect of delay also cannot be accepted. 15. One more aspect, which is required to be considered, is the antecedents of the accused which has also been considered by the Sessions Court and, therefore, the judgment and order recording conviction of the accused as stated above does not call for any interference. 16. The impugned judgment and order recording conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections 363 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby confirmed. The present appeal accordingly stands dismissed. Appeal Dismissed