JUDGMENT : S.PUJAHARI, J. Through this appeal, the appellant has called in question his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”) recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. No.290/15 of 2010-11 wherein he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months. 2. According to the prosecution, the victim, a young illiterate rustic 14 years old female, was subjected to rape by the appellant on 08.08.2010 around 8 p.m. At the relevant time the victim was enroute home from a nearby grocery shop. Finding her alone in a lonely land the appellant is an erotic impulse caught hold of the victim, gagged her mouth and physically lifted her to a nearby dilapidated cowshed where forcibly removed her wearing apparels and ravished her sexually. The victim offered resistance and tried to escape, but could not extricate herself from the clutch of the well-built rapist. However, she raised alarm to attract nearby persons. Hearing her alarm, her sister-Biswa Munda (P.W.3) and her brother-in-law – Krushna Munda (P.W.4) rushed to that spot and found the appellant still ravishing the victim. On their arrival, the appellant took to his heals. In paroxysm of despair and frustration, the crestfallen victim with tears rolling down her cheek, ouch in pain narrated before them as to how the appellant finding her alone in that lonely lane gagged her mouth and physically lifted her from the road to that nearby dilapidated cowshed and ravished her despite her protest. Hearing such hype and hoopla over the issue, other relatives of the victim and several other villagers also arrived at the spot. The victim also narrated before them that unfortunate incident. On the next day, her paternal uncle (P.W.2) lodged F.I.R. at Ainthapali Police Station whereupon P.S. Case No.237 dated 09.08.2010 was registered, investigation commenced, victim was referred for medical examination, her wearing apparels were seized, appellant was arrested and also subjected to medical examination, his pant was seized, and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was laid against the appellant under Section 376 of IPC. Offence alleged against the appellant being exclusive triable by the Court of session, the case was committed to the Court of Session at Sambalpur. Offence alleged against the appellant being exclusive triable by the Court of session, the case was committed to the Court of Session at Sambalpur. On the basis of material on record, charge under Section 376 of IPC was framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty guilt and claimed false implication he having refused to marry the victim. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and exhibited 12 documents and 6 Material Objects. The appellant also examined one witness in support of his plea of denial. Being satisfied with the nature and evidentiary value of the prosecution witnesses, the learned trial court found the incident as alleged proved. Accordingly, the appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced as above. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that when medical evidence does not support the case of rape and particularly when the evidence of the victim in the peculiar facts and circumstances does not inspire confidence, conclusion of guilt recorded by the trial court is unsustainable and deserves to be set-aside. 4. Assailing such contention, the learned Addl. Standing counsel submitted that the testimony of the victim and other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution being above reproach, notwithstanding absence of injuries, the conclusion of guilt and sentence warrant no interference of this Court. 5. To decide the conflicting claims, I have carefully considered the entire evidence brought on record to arrive at a just and reasonable conclusion as to whether the prosecution story, as alleged in the facts and circumstances, inspires confidence and whether the victim is a witness worthy of credence and whether her testimony needs corroboration. In the case of State of Rajasthan vrs. Noor Khan, 2000(2) Crimes 84 (SC), the Apex Court in paragraph-11 have held as follows :- “It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness; a high degree of probability having been shown to exist in view of the subject matter a criminal charge. However, if the Court of ….. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness; a high degree of probability having been shown to exist in view of the subject matter a criminal charge. However, if the Court of ….. may find it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice would do. Reference may be had to a long chain of decisions, some of which are Rameshwar, Sidheswar Ganguly, Madhoram & Another v. State of Maharashtra Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, Madam Gopal Kaddad, Shri Narayan, Karnel Singh, Bodhisattwa Gautam and Gurmit Singh (supra). We may quote from the last of the above said decisions where the rule for appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix in such cases has been succinctly summed up in the following words : “……. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the Court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial Court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.” 6. The victim, a rustic illiterate spinster, in her inimitable style has testified as to how in that fateful night while she was enroute home from a grocery shop, finding her alone in an isolated place, the appellant appeared at the scene, gagged her mouth, physically lifted her to a nearby deserted cowshed, where he also gagged her mouth by her ‘Odhani’, removed her dress and his dress as well and then forcibly committed sexual intercourse. She has also deposed that finding chance, she raised alarm inviting attention of persons dwelling in nearby houses. Her evidence further reveals that on hearing her alarm, her sister – Biswa Munda (P.W.3) and brother-in-law-Krushna Munda (P.W.4) arrived followed by her other relative (P.W.2) and few neighbours. At their appearance, the appellant jumped over the cowshed and escaped. She has also deposed that finding chance, she raised alarm inviting attention of persons dwelling in nearby houses. Her evidence further reveals that on hearing her alarm, her sister – Biswa Munda (P.W.3) and brother-in-law-Krushna Munda (P.W.4) arrived followed by her other relative (P.W.2) and few neighbours. At their appearance, the appellant jumped over the cowshed and escaped. She narrated before them in details as to how she was ravished by the appellant despite of her protest. She has denied the defence suggestion that she was 17 years old on the date of her examination on 15.11.2011. She has given explanation that when the ‘Odhani’ slipped from her mouth, she cried for help, hearing which, the P.Ws.2, 3, 4, 5 and several others arrived when the appellant was still committing rape. She also denied any prior acquaintance with the appellant. She has, however, stated that while the appellant was committing sexual act with her she found some fluid oozing out on her genitalia. She has also given explanation as to why on that night she did not prefer to proceed to the Police Station, that being at a considerable distance from their house. 7. P.Ws.3 and 4 have deposed that on relevant night at about 8 p.m. hearing alarm of the victim when they rushed towards cowshed they found the appellant committing rape mounting on her body. Being rescued, the victim narrated before them as to how she was ravished by the appellant taking advantage of the loneliness of the place while she was coming from grocery shop. P.W.2 is the paternal uncle of the victim. He deposed that when he reached home sometimes after 8 p.m. he heard that unfortunate incident from the victim as well as from P.Ws.3 and 4. On the same night he conveyed a village meeting and on the advice of the villagers, on the following day he lodged F.I.R. (Ext.1). P.Ws.2 and 3 have stated that the victim was around 14 years old on the date of occurrence. P.W.5, Saibani Munda, the younger sister of the victim, has stated that on the relevant night at around 8 p.m. when P.Ws.3 and 4 were found running hearing cry of the victim she followed them and saw the appellant mounting on the body of the victim committing rape. This witness is around 14 years old, a rustic girl. P.W.5, Saibani Munda, the younger sister of the victim, has stated that on the relevant night at around 8 p.m. when P.Ws.3 and 4 were found running hearing cry of the victim she followed them and saw the appellant mounting on the body of the victim committing rape. This witness is around 14 years old, a rustic girl. She has also stated that the victim had been to grocery shop. P.W.6, a co-villager of the victim, has deposed about the village meeting conveyed around 9 p.m. of the relevant night on the requisition of P.W.2 where they ascertained about that incident and it was decided to lodge report at the Police Station. Similar is the statement of P.W.7. He has deposed about the village meeting conveyed by Ward member on the request of P.W.2. P.W.8, who is living adjoining that cowshed, deposed that on 08.08.2010 at around 8 p.m. she found this appellant jumping on the road near her house and escaped where P.Ws.2 and 5 disclosed before her that appellant raped P.W.1 while she was enroute home from the grocery shop. This is the gist of the oral evidence of the victim and other witnesses. To repel such oral evidence, the appellant has examined one Sitaram Munda as D.W.1 who has deposed that the appellant having denied to marry the victim who is residing in the same village, she made this false accusation. However, in cross-examination this witness admitted that on the relevant night a village meeting was conveyed where he ascertained that appellant raped the victim. Of course, there is no suggestion to P.W.1 that she had given marriage proposal to the appellant, but the appellant having rejected such proposal of marriage with her, she foisted this case with the assistance of her sister, uncle and other relatives to take revenge. 8. In this backdrop, the evidence of P.W.9, the Medical Officer, revealed that she did not find any sign or symptoms of recent sexual intercourse. However, she having thoroughly examined the victim stated a case of rape is not ruled out. 9. The victim, her paternal uncle (P.W.2) and her sister (P.W.3) have also deposed that the victim was around 14 years old on the date of the alleged occurrence. The victim and her sisters are all illiterate rustic. However, she having thoroughly examined the victim stated a case of rape is not ruled out. 9. The victim, her paternal uncle (P.W.2) and her sister (P.W.3) have also deposed that the victim was around 14 years old on the date of the alleged occurrence. The victim and her sisters are all illiterate rustic. P.W.5, the younger sister of the victim was around 14 years old on the date of her examination on 16.11.2011. No suggestion given to the P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 5 that the victim was more than 16 years on the date of alleged occurrence. The victim denied the suggestion that she was 17 years old on the date of her examination on 15.11.2011. The victim’s family members are all rustic illiterate and they have no birth certificate to substantiate the age of the victim. They are also labourer by profession. There is also no evidence that the victim was ever admitted in any School. In such circumstances, absence of birth certificate and school admission register is no material infirmity in the prosecution case especially when there is no variation in the age as given by P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and no contrary material produced on behalf of the defence to discredit P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 on this count. No doubt the doctor with reference to X-ray report has stated that the victim would be in between 17 to 19 year old but Radiologist being not examined, her opinion as to the probable age of the victim is not final and binding especially when the doctor himself stated that Radiologist opinion needs to be taken to ascertain the age of the victim. Here, the victim’s family being illiterate rustic and when the victim’s father is dead, absence of birth certificate does not affect the oral testimony of the victim, her two sisters and her paternal uncle having testified about her age. Hence, it would be unsafe to accept the ossification test report under Ext.2 to hold that the victim was above 18 years of age. Therefore, the victim was rightly held to be a minor by the learned trial court. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant attempted to make a mountain out of the mole i.e. the Medical Officer did not notice any injury on the vagina of the victim. Therefore, the victim was rightly held to be a minor by the learned trial court. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant attempted to make a mountain out of the mole i.e. the Medical Officer did not notice any injury on the vagina of the victim. There is no evidence on record that the appellant violently ravished the victim nor there is material to hold that the floor of that cowshed was filled with pebble and other thorny object so as to cause injuries on the body surface of the victim. P.W.1, however, has stated that during course of sexual intercourse she found some fluids oozing out of her vagina. In this regard, a reliance can be placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Lakhia @ Laxmidhar Sahu vrs. State, (1997) 12 OCR 259, wherein it has been held as follows :- “…….It must also be remembered that the reaction of the vaginal mucosa to a penetrating foreign body is to lubricate, and therefore even in non-consenting intercourse there will be a certain amount of lubrication produced during the act, even if lubrication was lacking on initial penetration. The frequently repeated myth that the vagina will remain dry in non-consenting intercourse with the resulting production of serious abrasion and bruising is entirely untrue. In the case of sexually experienced women, and those who have born children, signs of even the most minor vaginal injury may well be absent. This Court in the case of Dinabandhu Behera vrs. State of Orissa, reported in (1995) 8 OCR 123, has held as follows :- “Absent of injuries on the person of the victim may not be fatal to the prosecution and corroborative evidence may not be an imperative component of judicial credence in rape cases.” Thus absence of injury cannot be a factor to rule out the allegation of rape.” In this background, when the victim having no axe to grind against the appellant, deposed the appellant to have raped her, there is no reason to view her evidence with suspicion, particularly when at her first opportunity she disclosed before her sister, her brother-in-law and other relatives as to how she was ravished by the appellant. P.W.2, the paternal uncle of the victim, P.W.3, the sister of the victim and P.W.4, the brother-in-law of the victim and P.W.5, another sister of the victim, have deposed as to how the victim narrated before them at the spot. In fact, all of them had occasioned to see the appellant still ravishing the victim. The immediate conduct of the victim in disclosing about the incident before her close relatives is admissible as res gestae under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as it is a spontaneous statement connected with the fact in issue and there was no time interval for fabrication or concoction. It is also admissible in evidence under Sections 8 and 157 of the Evidence Act. When the victim of rape states on oath that she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse, she has to be believed and her version needs to be accepted like any other testimony unless there is material available to draw adverse inference or such testimony is inherently improbable. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 is found unimpeachable and creates enormous confidence and there is no room to view it with suspicion. Here, the totality of the evidence leads to a highly probable and reasonable conclusion that the appellant had sexually ravished the minor illiterate and rustic aboriginal. In spite of her tender age and rustic background, she stood firm, nothing substantial elicited in her cross-examination to discard her out right. Absence of injuries being inherent in her evidence that cannot be a factor to be considered against the prosecution. She had no motive to falsely involve the appellant. The probability factor does not render it unworthy of credence. Absence of mark of struggle is also of no avail in this particular case she being young girl of tender age. Absence of injuries on her private part cannot discard her inspiring testimony. She also being below 16 years of age, as held by the trial court, consent on her part cannot be inferred. 11. From the preceding analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case to the hilt and there is no infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial court and the same does not call for any interference. 12. 11. From the preceding analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case to the hilt and there is no infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial court and the same does not call for any interference. 12. But, so far as the sentence imposed is concerned, as it appears, the appellant though a major man committed sexual assault on a victim of below 16 years of age. But, considering the fact that except the fact that the appellant was a grown-up girl and the victim was a minor girl below 16 years of age and committed sexual intercourse on a victim, no other aggravating circumstances appears to be there against the appellant to impose sentence more than the minimum. In such premises, this Court is of the view that there was no justifiable reason to impose the sentence more than the minimum under Section 376 of IPC. Hence, this Court is inclined to reduce the substantive sentence of imprisonment to 7 (seven) years from 10 (ten) years R.I. imposed by the learned trial court with the sentence of fine imposed and default sentence in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376 of IPC, he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for six months with the further order that the substantive sentence shall run concurrently. 13. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, this criminal appeal stands dismissed. L.C.R. received be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this Judgment.