Lisa Gill, J.:- 1. This judgment shall dispose of CRA No. D-905-DB of 2012 (Sanjay Kumar versus State of Haryana) and CRA No. D-1171-DB of 2012 (Rajpal @ Nanha versus State of Haryana) arising out of a common judgment dated 04.06.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad. 2. Appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years besides a fine of ` 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months; for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years besides a fine of ` 10,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 months and for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) IPC sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years besides a fine of `20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 24 months. Sentence imposed on various counts has not been ordered to run concurrently. 3. F.I.R. No. 5 dated 04.01.2010, Ex. P8 was registered on the basis of statement, Ex. P3 of complainant Ram Niwas. Ram Niwas, who is father of the prosecutrix stated before the SI/SHO Ganga Ram, PW 9, on 04.01.2010 at about 1.30 p.m. that his daughter reveled that on the intervening night of 03.01.2010/04.01.2010 she had gone to the washroom at about 11.00 p.m. for urination. Appellant Sanjay son of Bir Singh gagged her mouth and put a knife upon her neck. Sanjay was accompanied by appellant Nanha. Both the appellants took her to Government Primary School, Lehrian and committed rape upon her one after another without her consent. She was left at 3.45 a.m. when both of them fled away. Entire incident was narrated by his daughter at 4.00 a.m. to him and his wife Suraj Mukhi. On the basis of this statement, F.I.R. No. 5 dated 04.01.2010 was registered. 4. Prosecutrix was medico legally examined by Dr. Shivani Saini, MLR being Ex. P36. The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex. P2) was recorded on 07.01.2010. She has narrated the incident as told by her to her parents inculpating both the appellants. Accused Rajpal was arrested on 08.01.2010. He suffered a disclosure statement Ex. P24 and pointed out the place of occurrence. Rajpal was medico legally examined by Dr. Sumit Bansal, PW 5. P2) was recorded on 07.01.2010. She has narrated the incident as told by her to her parents inculpating both the appellants. Accused Rajpal was arrested on 08.01.2010. He suffered a disclosure statement Ex. P24 and pointed out the place of occurrence. Rajpal was medico legally examined by Dr. Sumit Bansal, PW 5. Appellant Sanjay was arrested on 09.01.2010 by PW 9, SI Ganga Ram. Disclosure statement Ex. P29 was suffered by Sanjay and the place of occurrence was pointed out by him and a knife, Ex. P35 was also got recovered by him. Sanjay was medico legally examined by Dr. Sunil Kumar Goyal, PW 6. Middle Standard examination certificate, Ex. P6 pertaining to the prosecutrix was taken in possession vide memo Ex. P5. Her date of birth in this document is recorded as 04.11.1995. 5. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against accused and charge was framed against them on 13.05.2010 to which they pleaded innocence and claimed trial. 6. Prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove its case. Accused appellants while denying the incriminating material put to them pleaded false implication and innocence in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They took a specific stand that prosecutrix had in fact gone away with one Sunil Kumar and it is only with a view to save Sunil Kumar present case was registered against them. Three witnesses were examined in defence. 7. Learned trial Court on considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence on record, found the appellants to be guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(g)IPC and convicted them as mentioned above. Aggrieved from their conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred the present appeals. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that positive evidence has been led by the defence to prove that the prosecutrix was over 18 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence. Furthermore the appellants have been falsely implicated only with a view to save Sunil Kumar i.e. the boy she had eloped with and contracted married as reflected in the marriage certificate, EX. D13. He referred to Ex. Furthermore the appellants have been falsely implicated only with a view to save Sunil Kumar i.e. the boy she had eloped with and contracted married as reflected in the marriage certificate, EX. D13. He referred to Ex. D1, a writ petition dated 11.04.2011 filed by Sushil @ Sunil @ Sonu son of Munshi Ram wherein it is averred that marriage was contracted between said Sunil and the prosecutrix and prayer was made for protection of life and liberty of both Sunil as well as the prosecutrix. He also refers to statement of prosecutrix Ex. D4 dated 21.05.2011 to the effect that she has married Sushil @ Sunil on 20.01.2011 and she is major. It is submitted that the father of the prosecutrix is habitual of filing false cases. He lodged F.I.R. No. 3 dated 02.01.2011 under Sections 363, 366A read with Section 120B IPC against Sushil @ Sunil and Ramesh Kumar, who were acquitted vide Ex. D9. They were acquitted on the ground that prosecutrix had stated that she had married Sushil @ Sunil out of her own free will. 9. In view of the admission of the prosecutrix herself about her age, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court has erred in holding that she was about 14/4 years at the time of incident, her date of birth being 04.11.1995. It is further argued that Dr. Shivani who had conducted medico legal examination of the prosecutrix was not examined by the prosecution. Furthermore, even Medical Legal Report, Ex. P36 reveals that there was no mark of external injury on the person of the prosecutrix. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that she was subjected to rape by both the appellants. 10. Learned counsel for the State while refuting the above said pleas prays for upholding the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence respectively. He submits that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove that the present appellants are guilty of the offences as charged. It is pointed out that eloping of the prosecutrix with Sushil @ Sunil at a later stage cannot be of any use of the appellants. Age of the prosecutrix is duly proved on record on the basis of Ex. P6. There is no reason for false implication of the accused in this case. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants should be upheld. 11. Age of the prosecutrix is duly proved on record on the basis of Ex. P6. There is no reason for false implication of the accused in this case. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants should be upheld. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Date of birth of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 04.11.1995 in the certificate of Middle examination issued by Haryana School Education Board. Middle Examinations were held in February 2008. There is no ground whatsoever to disbelieve this certificate. Statement/declaration was made by the prosecutrix that she is a major in May 2011 in proceedings relating to protection of life and liberty of Sushil @ Sunil with whom she had allegedly eloped and in the proceedings under Sections 366, 376 IPC against said Sunil are of no avail to the appellants. Such like statements cannot be read in derogation of the specific documentary evidence. Therefore, it is conclusively proved that prosecutrix was under 16 years of age at the time of occurrence on the intervening night of 03.01.2010/04.01.2010 and was only about 14 1/4 years old at that point of time. 12. In respect to non-examination of Dr. Shivani Saini who medico legally examined the prosecutrix, it has been duly explained by Dr. Sumit Bansal, PW 5 that she had left the government job as a Medical Officer and was settled in USA. He deposed that he was posted with her as a Medical Officer in Civil Hospital, Bhuna on 04.01.2010 and they used to work together. Being acquainted with her handwriting and signature he proved Dr. Shivani's handwriting and signature on Ex. P36, the medico legal report in respect to the prosecutrix. 13. It was sought to be pointed out that absence of any injuries on the person of the prosecutrix reveal that no rape was committed upon her. As per Ex. P36, Medico Legal Report of the prosecutrix, there is admittedly no external mark of injury upon her person. However, hymen was found to be lacerated at many places. In any case, it is not the stand of the appellants that it was a case of consent on the part of the prosecutrix. Therefore, this aspect is not relevant especially keeping in view the age of the prosecutrix. However, hymen was found to be lacerated at many places. In any case, it is not the stand of the appellants that it was a case of consent on the part of the prosecutrix. Therefore, this aspect is not relevant especially keeping in view the age of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix has given a steadfast and consistent version right from her initial statement under Section 164Cr.P.C. to her testimony before the Court. In the present case semen was found present on the underwear of the prosecutrix. Medico legal examination of the accused revealed that there is nothing on record to show that they were unable to perform sexual intercourse. There is nothing on record, which would create a doubt on the veracity as put forth by the prosecutrix or her father. 14. There is no delay whatsoever in the lodging of the F.I.R. Incident took place in the intervening night on 03.01.2010/04.01.2010. She was let off at about 3.45 a.m. She immediately revealed the incident to her parents at about 4 a.m. F.I.R. was registered on 04.01.2010 at 1.40 p.m. In the peculiar circumstances where a young girl had undergone such a traumatic experience which may invite social stigma, it cannot be said that there is a delay in lodging of the F.I.R. 15. Bogey of the prosecutrix having eloped with one Sushil @ Sunil has been raised on behalf of the appellants. Perusal of the record reveals that alleged elopement of the prosecutrix with Sushil @ Sunil is of May 2011 i.e. subsequent to the incident in the present case. It appears that the appellants want to take undue advantage of the above said fact. Even if it is accepted that the prosecutrix had eloped subsequently with Sushil @ Sunil, it cannot absolve the appellants from the offence. There is no reason whatsoever for the appellants to be falsely implicated due to her involvement with Sunil. Even if it is accepted that she was having an affair with the said Sunil, it did not give a licence to the appellants to commit the said offence. 16. Reliance on Ex. D8 i.e. application for conducting an inquiry into this case does not improve the appellants' case as said application is not proved. DW 4 has stated that he was not a signatory to the said application, Ex. D8. 16. Reliance on Ex. D8 i.e. application for conducting an inquiry into this case does not improve the appellants' case as said application is not proved. DW 4 has stated that he was not a signatory to the said application, Ex. D8. There is no evidence on record which would detract from the genuineness of the statement of the prosecutrix and the other witnesses. Prosecution has indeed succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons who have been rightly convicted. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants at this stage submits that keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the young age of the appellants, sentence imposed upon them be reduced. It is also argued that learned trial Court has not directed all the sentences to run concurrently as is mandated. 18. While referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj (a) Panu versus State of Haryana 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 525, learned counsel submits that when an accused is convicted for different offences under a single transaction, sentence to run concurrently and not consecutively and there is no reason whatsoever to impose consecutive running of the sentence upon the appellants. We find merit in this submission on behalf of the appellants. Facts and circumstances of the case do not justify consecutive running of the sentence imposed upon the appellants. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants, it is ordered that all the sentence imposed upon the appellants on various counts should run concurrently. In default of payment of fine, under all the counts, appellants shall undergo imprisonment of one year in default. 19. With the above said modification in the sentence, both the appeals are dismissed.