JUDGMENT : Raghubir Dash, J. - This Criminal appeal is against the judgment dated 28.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur in C. T. case No. 88/2008 (arising out of G. R. Case No. 59/2008 on the file of the S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur) convicting the appellant for having been found guilty of the offence punishable under section 376, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R. 1. for ten years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo R. I. for three months. 2. Jagatsinghpur P. S. Case No. 27/2008 was registered on the complaint filed by the victim's mother (registered as I.C.C. No. 16/2008) being sent by the learned S. D. J. M., Jagatsinghpur to the said Police Station for investigation into the alleged crime. In the complaint it is narrated that the victim, then aged about 13, was reading in Class-VII in Purohitpur School. The appellant-accused, victim's neighbour, used to subject the victim to sexual harassment while she was commuting to her school. Out of fear the victim was not telling anything to her parents. However, when such atrocities because unbearable she brought those facts to the notice of her parents. The matter was also reported to the village gentries. It is further alleged that on 10.4.2007 at about 7.00 a.m. when the victim had gone to a tube well to fetch water, the appellant dragged her to his house gagging her mouth and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. She informed that fact to her parents who brought the same before the local gentries. There was another incident on 30.4.2007 at about 8.00 p.m. When the victim was in their cow-shed the appellant stealthily entered inside and committed rape on her. She reported the matter to her parents who brought the matter to the notice of the villagers. They remained silent. Again on 26.10.2007 at about 8.00 p.m. the appellant, finding the victim alone, dragged her forcibly but when she raised alarm, her elder mother and some other villagers including her parents gathered and the appellant left her and went away giving threatening to all those who had congregated. A village meeting was convened on 30.10.2007. When the gentries advised the victim's parents only to have the matter compromise, F.I.R. lodged on 5.11.2007 but the police did not take any action. There was yet another such incident. A village meeting was convened on 30.10.2007. When the gentries advised the victim's parents only to have the matter compromise, F.I.R. lodged on 5.11.2007 but the police did not take any action. There was yet another such incident. On 7.1.2008 evening the victim had gone to their cow-shed to bring dry cow-dung. The appellant had concealed there inside the cowshed. Finding her alone, he embraced her, molested her and then tried to take her to a nearby orchard but when she raised alarm her parents and neighbours collected and rescued her. In the same night the victim with her other went to the Police station and submitted a written report but the police did not accept the same. Having failed to get any co-operation and assistance from the police the complainant (victim?s mother) filed a complaint before the learned S.D.J.M. from the endorsement made by the learned S.D.J.M. on the front page of the complaint petition it transpires that it was presented on 11.1.2008. Learned S.D.J.M. directed the I.I.C., Jagatsinghpur Police Station for investigation under section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. Thereafter, the Police started investigation, examined witnesses, sent the victim as well as accused for medial examination, seized the wearing apparels of both of them and sent the same for serological test, got the statement of victim recorded under section 164, Cr. P.C. and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted on 28.5.2008. Thereafter, the learned S.D.J.M. committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 22.7.2008. On 27.8.2008 learned Sessions Judge framed charge under sections 376 and 509 of I.P.C. As may as 13 prosecution witnesses and 2 defence witnesses were examined during the trial. 3. Learned Sessions Judge assessed the evidence on record. Finding the testimony of the victim and some other prosecution witnesses reliable, the Court recorded the order of conviction and awarded the sentence as indicated earlier. 4. P.W. 4 is the victim. P.Ws 1 and 2 are victim's parents. P.W. 3 is a witness to one of the several incident alleged in the complaint petition. P.Ws. 5 to 9, 11 and 12 do not say anything about the case. P.W. 10 is a doctor, who examined the victim. P.W. 13 is the Investigating Officer. 5. D.Ws. 1 and 2 are co-villagers of the parties who simply say that no such occurrence as alleged against the appellant had ever taken place. 6. P.Ws. 5 to 9, 11 and 12 do not say anything about the case. P.W. 10 is a doctor, who examined the victim. P.W. 13 is the Investigating Officer. 5. D.Ws. 1 and 2 are co-villagers of the parties who simply say that no such occurrence as alleged against the appellant had ever taken place. 6. The findings of the learned Court below have been challenged on the following ground : (1) The allegations made in the complaint that the victim was sexually harassed by the appellant on a number of occasions do not inspire credibility. (2) The long delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been explained convincingly. (3) The medical evidence negative the allegations made by the prosecution. (4) Testimony of the interested witnesses, including the victim, suffers from material contradictions and in the absence of independent corroboration, learned Court below should not have placed reliance on them, more so when the prosecution claims that on more than one occasion the alleged sexual harassment was referred to the village gentries and even F.I.R. was lodged in the police Station, but there is no corroboration to such assertions either from the village gentries or the Police. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, supports the findings of the learned Court below emphasising on the fact that there is no reasonable ground for disbelieving the testimony of the victim and her parents. 7. According to the prosecution, the victim was raped on 10.4.2007 and 30.4.2007 and there were attempt-like incident on 26.10.2007 and 7.1.2008. Learned Court below has, however, held that the incident dated 30.4.2007 and 26.10.2007 have not been proved beyond reasonable doubts. No appeal has been preferred challenging the correctness of that finding. 8. Much emphasis has been put on Ground Nos. (1) and (4) in para-6 of this judgment. It is true that the testimony of witnesses who have supported the prosecution case suffers from inconsistencies. It is also true that many important facts narrated in the complaint petition so also in the depositions of the interested witnesses were not stated before the Police. Though it is the claim of the interested witnesses that on different occasions the village gentries were informed about the incidents none of the village gentries give corroboration to the testimony of the interested witnesses. Though it is the claim of the interested witnesses that on different occasions the village gentries were informed about the incidents none of the village gentries give corroboration to the testimony of the interested witnesses. Mostly on these ground, the learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the allegations made by the prosecution against the appellant do not inspire credibility. However, it is not specified as to why the victims and her parents would falsely implicate the appellant. It was suggested to the victim and her parents during their respective cross-examination that due to land dispute and village rivalry the appellant was falsely implicated. In his examination under section 313 (1) (b) of Cr. P.C. accused-appellant has stated that due to land dispute he has been falsely implicated. Two defence witnesses have been examined who have not stated anything about the alleged land dispute and /or village rivalry. They have simply stated that no incident involving the victim and the appellant was reported to them. Thus, there is no material showing existence of land dispute between the victim's family on one part and the appellant on the other, also about the existence of village rivalry. If it were a case of false implication the informant could have chosen to implicate the appellant alleging rape against his wife instead of putting at stake the future of his unmarried daughter. There in nothing on record making it difficult on the part of the Court to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value. Learned Trial Court has placed reliance on the testimony of the victim and her parents. Merely on the ground that there are inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses or that they have not stated before the I. O. in the same manner a they have narrated before the Court during the trial, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved. There is no improbability in the prosecution story. The inconsistencies and omissions have occurred due to several reasons, the interested witnesses are illiterate persons. From their testimony it transpires that none of them is in a position to mention dates of different important incidents. In the complaint petition as many as four differents incident have been narrated. Two of the incidents relate to allegation of rape and the rest two relate to either molestation or attempt to commit rape. From their testimony it transpires that none of them is in a position to mention dates of different important incidents. In the complaint petition as many as four differents incident have been narrated. Two of the incidents relate to allegation of rape and the rest two relate to either molestation or attempt to commit rape. While narrating the incidents in the complaint petition dates of each of the specific incidents have been given. Specification of the dates in the complaint petition does not appear to have been made on the instruction of the complainant/informant or her husband. The defence made extensive cross-examination to test the ability of the interested witnesses to remember important events of their lives and as to how could they note the dates of the different reported incident. Rest part of the cross-examination in about the omissions in their statements under section 161 of Cr. P.C. Little cross-examination has been made with regard to what the witnesses have stated in Court on different incidents. 9. On a complaint petition which is registered as F.I.R., four incidents have been narrated. Because of rusticity of the interested witnesses they got confused while narrating the incidents in the Court by giving different dates of the incidents. As a result discrepancy occurred. Had it been a case of one incident, there would not have been any such confusion. The victim is a minor girl. The appellant is a married person. It is stated by the victim's parents that some of the incidents were reported to the village gentries and also to the police. They did not take the allegations seriously. Be that as it may, there is no improbability in what they have stated in their testimony. 10. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, 1990 (1) Crimes (SC) 724, it has been observed that the nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation accepting her evidence. In this case, it is really embarrassing to note that victim's parents did not take timely legal action to prevent recurrence of sexual harassment against the victim. But it must be remembered that they are poor and most probably they waited for some time so that the appellant would mend himself. It is quite probable that the victim was sexually inclined to the appellant and despite of her parent's dissuasion she continued to keep such relationship with him and when the parents thought it to be beyond their control, they reported the matter to the Police and when the police showed inaction, they moved the Criminal Court to prosecute the appellant. If the victim were not a minor, the fate of the case might have been otherwise. But the victim being a minor at the relevant time, her consent, if any, is immaterial. It is also quite probable that the victim was not a consenting party and deposit of efforts made by the victims' parents as claimed in their complaint petition, the appellant did not desist from making sexual assault on the victim. Be that as it may, it is a case of sexual assault made by the appellant either with or without the consent of the victim and it can never be a case of false implication as claimed by the appellant. There is intrinsic value in the oral evidence of the interested witnesses so far as the allegation of rape and other sexual assaults on the victim is concerned. It the testimony is dealt with in a mechanical manner giving undue weight age to the inconsistencies and omissions as pointed out by the defence, it would lead to miscarriage of justice. 11. In Anam Swain and others v. The State, Vol. It the testimony is dealt with in a mechanical manner giving undue weight age to the inconsistencies and omissions as pointed out by the defence, it would lead to miscarriage of justice. 11. In Anam Swain and others v. The State, Vol. XIX (1953) CLT 14, it has been observed as follows : The proof of a fact depends not upon the accuracy of statements made at different stages of a case but upon the probability of its having existed. A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matter before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of that particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. Evidence of a fact and proof of a fact are not synonymous. While, therefore, there may be inaccuracies in the evidence, the fact sought to be proved may be so probable that a prudent man may act upon the supposition that it exists. It is the broad facts of the case, and not the little details that go to make up those fact that will make the existence of those fact probable or not. Discrepancies are bound to occur in human testimony and mathematical precision the statements of witnesses cannot be expected. These inaccuracies or discrepancies may arise out of the incompetency of a witness to state a fact precisely or completely, or out of the failure of the person who records his statement to appreciate the importance of the fact at the time of recording it and the accuracy of the record. They may also arise out of lapse of memory or the strangeness of the surroundings. 12. In Narotam Singh v. State of Punjab and another, AIR 1978 SC 1542 , it has been observed as follows : Discrepancies do not necessarily demolish testimony; delay does not necessarily spell university and tortured technicalities do not necessarily upset conviction when the Court has had a perspicuous, sensitive and correctly oriented view of the evidence and probabilities to reach the conclusion it did. Proof of guilt is sustained deposit title infirmities, tossing peccadilloes and peripheral probative shortfalls. The 'sacred cows' of shadowy doubts and marginal mistakes, processual or other, cannot deter the Court from punishing crime where it has been sensibly and substantially brought home. Proof of guilt is sustained deposit title infirmities, tossing peccadilloes and peripheral probative shortfalls. The 'sacred cows' of shadowy doubts and marginal mistakes, processual or other, cannot deter the Court from punishing crime where it has been sensibly and substantially brought home. Keeping in mind the well settled principles of appreciation of evidence, while assessing the evidence of the interested witnesses, this Court does not find sufficient reason for disturbing the findings in the impugned judgment. As regards the long delay in lodging the F.I.R. the same stands explained in the manner the victim?s parents claim to have tackled with the situation. 13. Inviting attention to the medical evidence, it is further argued that the victim does not get corroboration even from medical evidence. Since there was delay in the medical examination sign and symptoms of recent sexual intercourse could not be detected by the Doctor. Absence of injuries on the person of the victim does not necessarily give rise to an inference that there was no sexual assault on the victim. In Rafiq v. State of U.P., 1980 Cri LJ 1344 (SC), it is held that absence of injury by itself in the context of other cogent and acceptable evidence on record, would not be a ground for holding that there was no sexual intercourse against the will of the prosecutrix habituated to sexual intercourse, no reliance should be placed on her testimony on the ground that she is a minor and a victim of sexual assault. 14. In State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh, AIR 2004 SC 1290 , the medical evidence was to the effect that the victim therein aged about 14 years was accustomed to sexual intercourse, but that fact was held to be insignificant with further observation that even if the victim had lost her virginity earlier, it cannot be law give licence to any person to rape her. 15. In view of the afore stated observations, the impugned order of conviction is found to be justified As regards the order of sentence, it is contended that the learned Court below, in the facts and circumstances of the case, ought not to have imposed a term of substantive sentence which is in excess of the minimum of seven years. In this regard it has to be noted that the appellant was then a married person. In this regard it has to be noted that the appellant was then a married person. There are some element showing that the sexual intercourse might have taken place with the consent of the victim. The appellant is not shown to have bad any criminal record to his credit. From the date of his arrest he has been in custody. He will complete eight years of incarceration on 30.1.2016. Under such facts and circumstances substantive term of sentence of eight years would be adequate for the crime found to have been committed by the appellant. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The order of conviction is confirmed but the sentence stands modified. Instead of ten years of R. I., the appellant is Sentenced to undergo R. I. for eight years, but the sentence of fine and the default sentence imposed by the learned Court below stands confirmed. 17. The CRLA is accordingly disposed of. Final Result : Partly Allowed