Michael Zothankhuma, J:-- Heard Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned Amicus Curiae. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mizoram. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment & Order dated 21.11.2014 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lunglei in Crl.Tr. No.478/2013 wherein, the appellant has been convicted under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default S.I for 2 (two) months. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that an F.I.R was lodged on 04.09.2013 by the prosecutrix, who was 15 years of age at the relevant time, wherein it was stated that on 02.09.2013 at around 9 p.m, while the prosecutrix was on her way back to her house from her elder brother's house in Hlumte village, the appellant followed her and tried to defile her dignity by laying his hand on the prosecutrix. 4. The Officer-in-Charge, Lunglei Police Station registered Lunglei P.S Case No.104/2013 under Section 354(B) IPC against the appellant. The said case was investigated by visiting the place of occurrence and the police seized the victim's jacket, half pant and underwear. As the prosecutrix had some bruises on her body, the prosecutrix was also produced before the Medical Officer on 04.09.2013 and the Medical Officer furnished a report stating that the victim had got injury, i.e. bruise on the anterior and lateral aspect of left thigh. After examining the victim girl, the victim girl was produced by the Police before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lunglei on 04.09.2013, who recorded the victim's statement. 5. Due to the disclosure by the prosecutrix that she had been raped, the prosecutrix was again produced before the Medical officer on 18.09.2013, who examined the prosecutrix and in the doctor's report, it was stated that there was bruise on the lateral aspect of left thigh and there was an old tear seen at 7 o'clock position in the hymen, though no spermatozoa was seen. The Police also subsequently changed the charging Section from Section 354(B) to Section 376 (2)(i) IPC in the Lunglei P.S Case No.104/2013. 6. In the Judicial statement of the prosecutrix given to the Magistrate First Class, Lunglei, the prosecutrix stated that she had gone to her elder brother's residence wherein, the appellant was also present. The Police also subsequently changed the charging Section from Section 354(B) to Section 376 (2)(i) IPC in the Lunglei P.S Case No.104/2013. 6. In the Judicial statement of the prosecutrix given to the Magistrate First Class, Lunglei, the prosecutrix stated that she had gone to her elder brother's residence wherein, the appellant was also present. When she left the residence of her elder brother to go her house, the appellant followed her and as soon as she stepped out of her elder brother's house, the appellant caught her hand. The prosecutrix did not shout as she did not believe that he would have the tendency to rape her. However, the appellant dragged her down and the appellant inserted his penis into her private parts once. She pushed him away and he started assaulting her. The prosecutrix stated that the appellant pushed her to the ground where her head hit against a rock. The appellant also punched her on her thigh. The appellant also tore her underwear. The prosecutrix also stated that the appellant beat her every time she shouted for help and that no one seemed to hear her shouts. The prosecutrix also stated that she somehow pushed him away with all her strength and managed to run away to her elder brother's house and narrated the incident to them. A search was conducted and that the appellant was not found in the village. However, the Sairep YMA (NGO) was informed about the incident by her parents and the appellant was apprehended by the Sairep YMA, who then in turn informed the village leaders of the prosecutrix's village, i.e Hlumte. 7. The Trial Court thereafter, took evidence and came to the finding that rape had been committed upon the prosecutrix at the relevant time and was accordingly convicted under Section 376(2) IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default S.I for 2 (two) months. 8. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the impugned Order dated 21.11.2014 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Lunglei in Crl. Tr. No.478/2013 has to be set aside and quashed in view of the absence of spermatozoa in the Medical report which proved the fact that no rape was committed. 2,000/-, in default S.I for 2 (two) months. 8. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the impugned Order dated 21.11.2014 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Lunglei in Crl. Tr. No.478/2013 has to be set aside and quashed in view of the absence of spermatozoa in the Medical report which proved the fact that no rape was committed. The further ground taken by the Amicus Curiae is that there was discrepancy in the statement made by the prosecutrix to the Magistrate on 04.09.2013 vis-a-vis her evidence given in the Court. 9. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the prosecutrix in her statement before the Judicial Magistrate First Class had stated that "rape occurred", while in her evidence, the prosecutrix stated that she had rushed to the residence of her brother and told them that accused "tried to rape" her. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that this contradiction in the statement of the prosecutrix cast a doubt on whether rape had been committed and as such, the prosecution could not have proved that rape had been committed by the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The Amicus Curiae also submits that in the statement given to the Magistrate First Class on 04.09.2013, the prosecutrix had stated that she shouted for help and that every time she shouted for help, the appellant beat her. However, in her evidence given on 24.02.2014, the prosecutrix stated that she shouted for help but the appellant gagged her mouth. Another point raised by the learned Amicus Curiae was to the effect that there was considerable delay in producing the prosecutrix before the Medical Officer, the second time. He submits that the delay was of 16 days and the Medical Officer's latter report showed that there was an old tear in the hymen at 7 o'clock position. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that this old tear does not indicate that the same had occurred on the relevant date due to the act of the appellant. The learned Amicus Curiae thus submits that the appellant did not rape the prosecutrix and has accordingly prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment & order. 10. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mizoram submits that the appellant had hit the prosecutrix as per the evidence given by the prosecutrix, which was corroborated by the Doctor's report. The Addl. 10. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mizoram submits that the appellant had hit the prosecutrix as per the evidence given by the prosecutrix, which was corroborated by the Doctor's report. The Addl. Public Prosecutor also submits that the evidence of prosecutrix was not shaken at the time of cross-examination. The Addl. Public Prosecutor also submits the evidence adduced showed that the underwear and half pant worn by the prosecutrix got torn and that her jacket was smeared with mud. The Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that as the Doctor's report showed bruises on the inner thigh of the prosecutrix along with tear in the hymen, the act of rape was clearly evident. The Addl. Public Prosecutor also submits that the statement/evidence given by the prosecutrix was never shaken and inspires confidence. The Addl. Public Prosecutor also submits that the absence of spermatozoa in the private parts of the prosecutrix does not prove that appellant is innocent of the crime or that rape had not been committed. Accordingly, the Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 376(2)(i) IPC. 11. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 12. The evidence of the prosecutrix in the Court is as follows: "I know accused Biakliansanga, who is present in the court today. I was born on 1.2.1998. I attended school up to Class VIII. Biakliansanga @ Biakkama stayed at Hlumte village sawing Pu Lianzuala's timber. On the night of 2.9.2013 at about 9:00 pm, my father told me to get Dettol from my elder brother Laldingzuala's residence. When I reached my brother's residence, Biakliansanga was already there. As my brother did not have Dettol, I returned to home and found that Biakliansanga followed me. Before reaching Biakliansanga stopped me from entering my house. As I was afraid of being seen by people I hid behind at bolder. Biakliansanga came and pulled me towards the church and tried to rape me. He stripped me and also stripped my underpant and half pant which I was wearing at that time and in the process both my underpant and half pants got torn and my jacket was stuck with mud. As I struggled he knocked my head against a stone and hit me several times on my thigh. He told me to tell him, "I LOVE YOU" or else he would not let me go. As I struggled he knocked my head against a stone and hit me several times on my thigh. He told me to tell him, "I LOVE YOU" or else he would not let me go. As I was very scared, I told him, "I love you". But, instead of letting me go he told me that unless he had sexual intercourse with me he would not let me go. So, he tried to commit rape upon me. I tried my best to struggle and shouted for help, but he gagged my mouth with his hand and inserted his penis to my vagina. I cried for help, and he stood up. So, I kicked him, and he fell down, then I left him. I rushed to the residence of my brother and told them that the accused tried to commit rape upon and he also tortured me. I felt scared of telling then everything. So, I concealed the fact what had happened to me. My relatives tried to apprehend the accused but he fled to Hlumte village. They requested helped from Sairep YMA and Sairep YMA apprehended him. Then, we submitted FIR. As I suffered some injuries, I was brought to Civil Hospital, Lunglei for examination on my injury on 3.9.2013. On 4.9.2013 I was brought before Judicial Magistrate First Class to record my statement. Before the Magistrate, I disclosed that the accused had committed rape upon me. Then, on 18.9.2013 I was again brought to Civil Hospital for medical examination." 13. The question of whether the absence of spermatozoa during the examination of the prosecutrix could be a circumstance in favour of the appellant to prove that rape had not been committed has been answered in the case of Datta v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2013 14 SCC 588 wherein, the Apex Court has relied upon an earlier judgment in Prithi Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 1989 (1) SCC 432 which held that mere absence of spermatozoa cannot cast a doubt on the correctness of the prosecution case. 14. A perusal of the evidence given by the prosecutrix clearly shows the fact that the appellant had committed rape on the prosecutrix as he had inserted his penis in the private parts of the prosecutrix. 14. A perusal of the evidence given by the prosecutrix clearly shows the fact that the appellant had committed rape on the prosecutrix as he had inserted his penis in the private parts of the prosecutrix. The discrepancy in the statement of the prosecutrix given in her evidence which is to the effect she ran into the house of her elder brother and told them that the appellant "tried to commit rape" upon her vis-à-vis her statement to the Judicial Magistrate First Class to the effect that the appellant "committed rape" upon her is explained by the prosecutrix who states that she felt scared of telling them everything. It is understandable for a child of 15 years not to be able to understand the definition of rape to the full extent. Also it should be kept in mind that social stigma is usually attached to a rape victim and friends and neighbors usually shun a rape victim. It is not unexpected that minor contradictions and insignificant discrepancy could occur between the period of giving statement by the prosecutrix to the Magistrate First Class and in her evidence in the Court, where there was a time difference of approximately five and half months. The other discrepancy in the statement given by the prosecutrix is with regard to her shouting for help while being raped. In her statement before the Magistrate First Class, the prosecutrix had stated that she shouted for help but that the appellant would beat her up every time she shouted for help. On the other hand, in her evidence before the Court, the prosecutrix had stated that she tried her best to struggle and shouted for help, but the appellant gagged her mouth with his hand and inserted his penis into her vagina. She cried for help and when the appellant stood up, she kicked the appellant who fell down and she ran to the residence of her elder brother. Though the Amicus Curiae had stated that this discrepancy was a major contradiction in the statements/evidence made by the prosecutrix, we are of the view that this discrepancy or contradiction is of a very minor and insignificant character. On reading the evidence given by the prosecutrix, we are of the view that the same inspires confidence. Though the Amicus Curiae had stated that this discrepancy was a major contradiction in the statements/evidence made by the prosecutrix, we are of the view that this discrepancy or contradiction is of a very minor and insignificant character. On reading the evidence given by the prosecutrix, we are of the view that the same inspires confidence. In Narendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2012 7 SCC 171 it has been held by the Apex Court that once the statement of prosecutrix inspires confident and is accepted by the Court as such, conviction can be based only of the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitates a Court for corroboration of her statement. The Apex Court in the above case also held that minor contradictions and insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. 15. On considering another point raised by the Amicus Curiae as to whether the delay of 16 days in producing the prosecutrix before the medical officer for a second medical examination cast a doubt on the prosecution's case, we are aware of the fact that it was the duty of the police to produce the prosecutrix at the earliest possible opportunity for her second medical examination, after it was known through the statement given by the prosecutrix to the Magistrate First Class that she had been raped by the appellant. On perusal of the evidence adduced, we find that the point raised by the Amicus Curiae had not been put to test against any of the prosecution witnesses in the cross-examination. As such, the appellant cannot be allowed to raise the said issue at this stage as he has failed to establish that prejudice has been caused to him by the delay in producing the prosecutrix before the Medical Officer for the second time in the Trial Court. It may also be kept in mind that Hlumte is a village and the Medical Officer who examined the prosecutrix was posted in Civil Hospital, Lunglei. The Medical Officer's latter report reveals the fact that there was an old tear of the hymen of the prosecutrix at 7 o'clock position. It may also be kept in mind that Hlumte is a village and the Medical Officer who examined the prosecutrix was posted in Civil Hospital, Lunglei. The Medical Officer's latter report reveals the fact that there was an old tear of the hymen of the prosecutrix at 7 o'clock position. The findings of "old tear" could only have been due to the fact that the incident occurred on 02.09.2013 and a period of 16 days has elapsed before the hymen of the prosecutrix was examined. The fact however remains that the hymen of the prosecutrix was torn and it could have only occurred on the fateful night as there is no evidence to show that the 15 year old prosecutrix had sex after the date of the incident. 16. On considering the torn garments of the prosecutrix, we find no reason to disbelieve the prosecutrix when she has stated in her evidence that her half pant and underwear were torn by the appellant while stripping her. Further, the jacket of the prosecutrix was smeared with mud. The prosecutrix had also left her elder brother's house and there was no reason for her to rush back to her elder brother's house at night. 17. To a question put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 CrPC, which is to the following effect "It is in the evidence that while admitting to commit rape on her, you knock her head against a stone and you also hit her thigh several times. What do you have to say?", the appellant had given the answer "I kissed her. But, I did not assault the victim". Though the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC cannot be the sole basis for proving the guilt of the accused, the Apex Court has held in the case of Ashok Debbarma Alias Achak Debbarma v. State of Tripura reported in 2014 4 SCC 747 that statement given by the accused under Section 313(4) CrPC can be taken into consideration in a trial. The Apex Court in the case of Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat reported in AIR 1953 SC 468 has held that the answers given by the accused under Section 313 examination can be used for proving his guilt as much as the evidence given by the prosecutrix witnesses. The Apex Court in the case of Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat reported in AIR 1953 SC 468 has held that the answers given by the accused under Section 313 examination can be used for proving his guilt as much as the evidence given by the prosecutrix witnesses. We also find that with respect to the other question put forth to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 CrPC regarding the evidence of rape made against the appellant, the appellant has completely denied that he committed rape. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2014 5 SCC 353 that in case of complete denial of incriminating materials against the accused, the Court would be entitled to draw an inference, including adverse inference against the accused as may be permissible in accordance with law. 18. In the present case, the sequence of events, the corroborative evidence by way of medical report and the appellant's admission that he kissed the prosecutrix clearly proves that the appellant was present at the relevant point of time and that the whole surrounding evidence adduced proves he had committed the act of rape on the prosecutrix, who was unable to give consent, being only 15 years of age. 19. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the Judgment & Order dated 21.11.2014 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Lunglei in Crl.Tr No.478/2013 in convicting the accused/appellant under Section 376(2)(i) IPC. However, we are of the opinion that the appellant should have been convicted for a period of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and not imprisonment for life. Accordingly, the Judgment & Order dated 21.11.2014 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Lunglei in Crl. Tr No.478/2013 under Section 376(2)(i) IPC is modified to the extent that the appellant is sentenced to undergo R.I for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of which he shall be sentenced to undergo a further period of Simple Imprisonment for 2 months. We appreciate the assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae and his fee is fixed at 7,500/- to be paid by the Mizoram State Legal Services Authority. 20. This Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and modified to the extent indicated above. Send back the LCRs. -