JUDGMENT AND ORDER : M. R. Pathak, J. This criminal appeal from jail has been filed by the accused Sh. Lalhmangaihkhumtira being aggrieved with the judgment and order of conviction dated 04.06.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl, Mizoram in Sessions Case No. 61/2014 corresponding to Criminal Trial No. 618/2014 arising out of Thenzawl Police Station Case No. 6/2014 wherein he has been convicted under Section 376 (2) (i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, in short) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another two months; setting off the period of detention in judicial custody already undergone by him. 2. The criminal case has been set in motion when the informant, PW-1 Kaphrangi lodged a written FIR on 23.04.2014 (Ext. P/1) before the Officerin-charge of Thenzawl Police Station stating that in the afternoon of 11.04.2014 her daughter Ms. XYZ (name concealed), aged about 15 years, while went out in search of vegetables at Khangpui land area, was raped by the accused Sh. Lalhmangaihkhumtira of Tualvungi Veng, Thenzawl and therefore, requested the authority to take necessary action on the rapist as per law, which was accordingly registered as Thenzawl Police Station Case No. 06 of 2014 under Section 376 (i) IPC. The concerned Investigating Officer sent the victim to the Aizawl Civil Hospital for her medical examination, arrested the accused, visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C., in short), obtained the medical report of the victim and after completion of the investigation finding prima facie and sufficient incrementing materials in the case submitted the Charge Sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. vide No. 06/2014 dated 25.05.2014 against the accused/appellant under Section 376(2)(i) IPC. 3. As the charge section is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Judicial Magistrate, Aizawl by his order dated 05.08.2014 committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl and on receipt of the said case record on the same day itself, it was registered as Sessions Case No. 61/2014 and the learned Sessions Judge, Aizawl allotted the said case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl for its disposal. 4. 4. On receipt of the case record, the Additional Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl issued summons to the accused and other parties. The accused appeared before the Trial Court and on his prayer, one Advocate, namely, Sh. Albert VL Nghaka, was assigned to defend him at the State expense under Section 304 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court after going through the materials on record, on 30.09.2014 framed charge under Section 376 (2) (i) IPC against the accused/appellant, which was explained to him, to which, the accused pleaded innocent and not guilty and accordingly claimed for trial. 5. The prosecution examined four witnesses including the informant, the victim, the Medical officer, who examined the victim and the concerned Investigating Officer of the case. Though, the defence did not examine any witnesses from the side of the accused but the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined by the defence and the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned Trial Court on 07.05.2015. 6. Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused appellant submitted that there is no valid proof that the victim is less than 16 years old and further submitted that there is no proof that the accused committed rape on the victim on the alleged date of incident since the FIR of the case was filed belatedly without explaining the delay and the prosecution failed to bring home the allegations against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the impugned judgement and order of conviction needs to be set aside. In this regard Mr. Lalfakzuala, learned Amicus Curiae placed reliance on the following judgments of the unable Supreme Court as well as of this Court and they are – (2008) 15 SCC 133 (Raju v. State of M.P.), (2010) 1 SCC 742 (Sunil v. State of Haryana), (2010) 12 SCC 115 (Abbas Ahmad Choudhury v. State of Assam) and (2015) 7 SCC 773 (State of M.P. v. Anoop Singh). 7. On the other hand, Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State supporting the impugned judgement and order of conviction is based on evidence and therefore, the appeal needs to be dismissed. 8. The judgments cited on behalf of the accused appellant have been considered. 9. To consider the arguments placed by both the accused appellant and the State let me briefly examine the evidence of the case. 10. 8. The judgments cited on behalf of the accused appellant have been considered. 9. To consider the arguments placed by both the accused appellant and the State let me briefly examine the evidence of the case. 10. The PW-1, informant Kaphrangi in her evidence in chief deposed that the accused is personally known to her and they being from the same locality are good friends. The victim is her daughter, who was born on 04.05.1988 and studied upto 7th standard. She stated that she was divorced from her husband, father of the victim in the year 2001 and the victim stayed with her since 2012. She also stated that she could not recollect the exact day and time of the incident, but the accused invited the victim, her daughter to search for vegetable and both of them headed for the jungle in search of it as they used to collect edible fern and wild cardamom. She stated that when they returned in the evening, the victim did not reveal anything to her, but she told her friend Lawma about the incident and it is he, who informed her about the incident, after about a week. On being enquired, the victim requested not to scold her and stated that accused have done something indiscreetly while she went with him in search of vegetables. The said PW-1 stated that as she could not understood how to proceed further took advice from their family members and even from the victim's father and then they decided to report the incident before police and accordingly filed the FIR. Said PW-1 further stated that she did not ask the victim whether there was any coercion or whether she sustained any injury or not nor the victim told her anything in that regard. She also stated that before she lodged the FIR of the case, the family of the accused prayed to forgive the accused on numerous occasions, but they could not forgive him and resultantly lodged the FIR. 11. In her cross examination, she stated that she did not remember the date when the FIR was lodged and also stated that in the present state of condition, they have forgiven the accused and wanted the case to be discontinued. 12. PW-2 the victim Ms. 11. In her cross examination, she stated that she did not remember the date when the FIR was lodged and also stated that in the present state of condition, they have forgiven the accused and wanted the case to be discontinued. 12. PW-2 the victim Ms. XYZ in her evidence before the Court deposed that accused is personally known to her and she was born on 04.05.1988 and studied upto 8th standard and she lived with her father during school days. She also stated that her parents are already divorced and she dropped out of school in the year 2012 and at the time of incident she was with her mother. Though she did not remember the exact date and time, but she could recollect that it is the accused who invited her to search for vegetables and she thought that they will search for edible fern near the village well, but the accused took her deep into the woods saying that he would like to search the wild cardamom and they though went deep into the woods but could not find any. She also stated that after reaching one Zhoom hut, they headed back by taking a different route and the accused took her at the southern edge of the said route and asked her to weight there for him and then he collected few wild cardamom and thereafter both she and the accused trailed the stream upward and when they reached the road, the accused tried to hug her, but she threw his hands aside. The accused then searched for wild cardamom again and she waited for him. When the accused came, he shared the wild cardamom with her and then took her bag and even took out the knife from her bag that she used to carry with her for collecting vegetables. She also stated that in spite of her resistance, the accused hugged and kissed her and made her to lie down on the ground, though she struggled and tried her best to push him away. The victim also stated that knowing that the accused intended to rape her and although she told him that she do not want to do any such thing, but the accused forbade her from struggling and had sexual intercourse with her. The victim also stated that knowing that the accused intended to rape her and although she told him that she do not want to do any such thing, but the accused forbade her from struggling and had sexual intercourse with her. She further stated that during her such struggle with the accused, her dress got torn, the accused her pulled down her clothes and raped her. Thereafter she immediately headed home by searching her way and on reaching her home, she did not inform her mother about the incident as the accused warned her that it is not his name that would be blemished, rather it will be her name, if she reveals the incident. The victim stated that she was mentally troubled and got sick for quite a while and then decided to inform her good friend Lawma, who asked her to inform the incident to her mother in details and accordingly decided to inform her mother about it. She also stated that after coming to know about the incident, her family members were extremely angered and decided to lodge the FIR and before that her father and other family members discussed the matter. She stated that doctor examined her at hospital after the said FIR and that there was a gap of a week between the incident and lodging of the FIR of the case and that after lodging the said FIR, she again started to reside with her father. 13. In her cross examination, the victim stated that she was about 16 years of old at the time of the incident and she did not want to submit any FIR as she was scared that she will earn a bad reputation in the society and was ashamed about the incident and further, was also scared that her father would scold her. She also stated in her cross examination that the accused did not threaten her as such but told her that if she divulged the incident it will be her name that will be tarnished and not his and she admitted that she did not shout for any help as the accused closed her mouth with his hand even hold her legs and as they were deep in the forest and she was not in a position to shout and call for help. She denied the suggestion that she deposed falsely before the Court. She denied the suggestion that she deposed falsely before the Court. However she stated that of late she could forgive him and do not want to proceed further with the case. 14. On being re-examined by the Public Prosecutor, the victim submitted before the Court that before and after lodging the FIR the accused party, along with Church representatives visited them and during their visits, they continuously asked for his forgiveness and since the incident is of the past, she can now forgive the accused off late. 15. PW-3, Dr. Lalramhluna, Medical Officer, Thenzawl Community Health Centre, the doctor who examined the victim deposed before the Court that the victim regarding the incident that occurred on 11.04.2014 by herself and that she was exposed to sexual intercourse in the said incident, whereas she was brought for medical examination only on 24.04.2014 and found her hymen not intake. On said examine as the rapture of her hymen was not found fresh, the said Medical Officer did not specify the age of the tear of the victim's hymen and also did not send any material to the laboratory for examination. The said doctor also deposed before the Court that as per hospital record, victim's date of birth is 04.05.1998 and therefore, her determination of age by X-ray was not conducted. The Doctor also stated that on police requisition, he also examined the accused on 24.04.2014 itself and the requisition was mainly to find out the sexual maturity of the accused and during his medical examination, the accused was found physically and mentally healthy and on his genital examination, accused's secondary sexual organ was found fully developed and that he could have erection. The doctor identified the medical examination report of the victim (Exhibit P/2) as well as medical report of the accused (Exhibit P/3). 16. In his cross examination, the doctor, PW-3 stated that during her examination, no bodily injuries or marks of violence connected with the sexual assault of the body of the prosecutrix could be find nor any fresh injury was found in her genital organ. He stated that the hospital record was checked under his supervision while locating the date of birth of the victim. He also stated that while medically examining the genital organ of the accused, he did not have any finding that he could have indulge in sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. He stated that the hospital record was checked under his supervision while locating the date of birth of the victim. He also stated that while medically examining the genital organ of the accused, he did not have any finding that he could have indulge in sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely in the Court. 17. PW-4, Malsawmtluanga, Sub-Inspector of Police, Thenzawl Police Station, the concerned Investigating Officer of the case, identified the accused and deposed that on 23.04.2014, the PW-1 lodged the FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Thenzawl Police Station stating about the incident that on 11.04.2014 the accused committed rape on the informant's daughter in the jungle who was about 15 years old and accordingly Thenzawl PS Case No. 6/2014 under Section 376 (2) was registered. The said IO also stated that the statement of the victim was recorded and her medical report disclosed that her hymen was not intake. 18. In his cross examination the said IO submitted that PW-1, mother of the victim lodged the FIR and in fact the FIR was written by a literate constable as per the dictation of the informant and there was a delay of 12 days in submitting the FIR. He also stated that while he visited the place of occurrence to ascertain the incident there was no evidence that the accused had committed rape on the victim. He admitted that the date of birth of the victim was recorded as per the medical report available in the Community Health Centre. 19. On being re-examined by the prosecutor, the IO stated that it is the accused who led the police to the place of occurrence with reliable witness present along with them and the delay of submission of the FIR was because the victim's mother, PW-1, the informant of the case came to know about the incident lately and immediately on coming to know about the same she lodged the FIR. 20. In his further cross examination by the defence, the IO stated that on the date of the incident, the victim was 15 years old and stated that the victim did not inform the incident immediately since the accused threatened her not to disclose the same. 21. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Trial Court on 07.05.2015 where he denied all the allegations. 21. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Trial Court on 07.05.2015 where he denied all the allegations. On being asked as to whether the accused would adduce any defence evidence, he denied the same, stating that he has nothing to say in the matter. 22. The victim PW-2 in her evidence stated that her date of birth is 04.05.1988. The informant, mother of the victim PW-1 also stated that the victim is 15 years old. The Doctor PW-3 who medically examined the victim from the hospital record stated that victim's date of birth was 04.05.1998. As such from the above, it is seen that on 11.04.2014, the date of the alleged incident the victim was 15 years 11 months and 7 days, i.e. less than 16 (sixteen) years. This fact brought in evidence by prosecution remained unrebutted by the defence. 23. From the evidence of the informant it is seen that the victim told her mother the informant not to scold her while revealing the incident. The informant also stated that after hearing the incident she could not decide how to proceed further for which she took advice from other family members and even her divorced husband, the father of the victim and as per decision of all the members she submitted the FIR of the case. Moreover, the victim in her evidence also stated that the accused threatened her not to reveal or divulge the incident otherwise it is she will be blamed and because of the said incident the victim was mentally disturbed and was sick for quite a while and further she was scared that she shall be marked and have to live in the society with blemish and was also scared that her parents would scold her. These evidence reflects the reason for the delay in filing the FIR, which again remained unrebutted. 24. The victim in her evidence clearly stated how the accused took her to deep woods to collect fern and wild cardamom like other days and how he committed rape on her on the date of the incident. The concerned Doctor who examined the victim also placed in evidence that her hymen was not intact, corroborating the evidence of the victim. The defence could not destroy these evidence led by the victim. The concerned Doctor who examined the victim also placed in evidence that her hymen was not intact, corroborating the evidence of the victim. The defence could not destroy these evidence led by the victim. Moreover, while perusing all the evidence of the case, the Court found that the testimony of the victim inspires confidence and appears to be natural and truthful. 25. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain reported in (1990) 1 SCC 550 the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that – "a woman who is a victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and therefore her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. She is not in the category of a child witness or an accomplice and therefore the rule of prudence that her evidence must be corroborated in material particulars has no application, at the most the court may look for some evidence which lends assurance." 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnel Singh v. State of M.P., reported in (1995) 5 SCC 518 have held that – "In India women are slow and hesitant to complain of such assaults (sexual assault/rape) and if the prosecutrix happens to be a married person she will not do anything without informing her husband. Merely because the complaint was lodged less than promptly does not raise the inference that the complaint was false. The reluctance to go to the police is because of society's attitude towards such women; it casts doubt and shame upon her rather than comfort and sympathise with her. Therefore, delay in lodging complaints in such cases does not necessarily indicate that her version is false." 27. In the case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that – "In our opinion, there was no delay in the lodging of the FIR either and if at all there was some delay, the same has not only been properly explained by the prosecution but in the facts and circumstances of the case was also natural. The Courts cannot overlook the fact that in sexual offences delay in the lodging of the FIR can be due to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to the police and complain about the incident which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of her family. It is only after giving it a cool thought that a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged." 28. Generally a girl with self respect and dignity, who is conscious of her chastity and with the possibility of her married life, livelihood and better prospect would not accuse falsely against any other person of rape sacrificing and exposing herself and her family to blame, humiliation and shame in the society. It is well settled that if the statement of prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the Courts as such, conviction can be based only on the solid the evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration be required. 29. In the case of Vimal Suresh Kamble v. Chaluverapinake Apal S.P., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 175 the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that – "In a case where the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be natural and truthful, it is no doubt true that in law the conviction of an accused on the basis of such testimony of the prosecutrix alone is permissible. 30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (supra) have held that – "The trial court overlooked that a girl, in a tradition-bound non-permissive society in India, would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect upon her chastity had occurred, being conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down by the society. Her not informing the teachers or her friends at the examination centre under the circumstances cannot detract from her reliability. In the normal course of human conduct, this unmarried minor girl, would not like to give publicity to the traumatic experience she had undergone and would feel terribly embarrassed in relation to the incident to narrate it to her teachers and others overpowered by a feeling of shame and her natural inclination would be to avoid talking about it to anyone, lest the family name and honour is brought into controversy. Therefore her informing her mother only on return to the parental house and no one else at the examination centre prior thereto is in accord with the natural human conduct of a female. The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge leveled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self-inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self-inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable." 31. Though the victim and the informant in their evidence submitted before the Court that they are now able to forgive the accused appellant and does not want to continue with the case further. But a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shimbhu v. State of Haryana, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 318 have held that – "Rape is a non-compoundable offence and it is an offence against the society and is not a matter to be left for the parties to compromise and settle. Since the court cannot always be assured that the consent given by the victim in compromising the case is a genuine consent, there is every chance that she might have been pressurized by the convicts or the trauma undergone by her all the years might have compelled her to opt for a compromise. In fact, accepting this proposition will put an additional burden on the victim. In fact, accepting this proposition will put an additional burden on the victim. The accused may use all his influence to pressurize her for a compromise. So, in the interest of justice and to avoid unnecessary pressure/harassment to the victim, it would not be safe in considering the compromise arrived at between the parties in rape cases to be a ground for the court to exercise the discretionary power." 32. Considering all these the Court is of the opinion that the prosecution could lead cogent and reliable evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the accused appellant that it is he who committed rape on the victim who is less than 16 years old on date of the incident. 33. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.06.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl, Mizoram in Sessions Case No. 61/2014 corresponding to Criminal Trial No. 618/2014 arising out of Thenzawl Police Station Case No. 6/2014 with regard to the present accused appellant is affirmed and present appeal being devoid merit stands dismissed. 34. The valuable assistance rendered by both Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the accused/appellant and Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State are appreciated for proper adjudication of the case. 35. On raising a bill, the State Legal Services Authority, Mizoram, Aizawl shall pay an amount of Rs. 7,500/- to Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned Amicus Curiae towards his legal remuneration. 36. Registry shall send back the LCR to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl with a copy of the judgment.