JUDGMENT : (Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar, J.) 1. This jail appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant from jail in the year 2006 against the judgment and order dated 03.05.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 3, Bulandshahar in Sessions Trial No. 218 of 2005 (State vs. Mohan Lal), convicting the appellant under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in the event of default of payment of fine accused-appellant will have to undergo additional simple imprisonment of 2 years. 2. In view of the legislative mandate as contained in Section 228-A and the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the identity of the prosecutrix is not disclosed and hereinafter she will be referred as prosecutrix 'S'. 3. Prosecution story in nutshell is that on 26.11.2004 at about 18.30 hours one Sri Rakesh Kumar, resident of Mohalla Lodhan, Kasba & Police Station- Jahangirabad, lodged a written report with the Police Station-Anoopshahar that his sister Smt. Nirmala was earlier married to Ram Kishan but after the death of Ram Kishan, Smt. Nirmala was married to Mohan Lal 12 years ago. Smt. Nirmala lived with her sons and daughter. The prosecutrix 'S' aged about 15 years is the daughter of Smt. Nirmala. Yesterday Mohan Lal had brought prosecutrix 'S' to Anoopshahar for taking holy dip in the river Ganga. Today when Mohan Lal reached the house alone and when Smt. Nirmala enquired about prosecutrix 'S' then he replied that prosecutrix 'S' has gone missing in Anoopshahar Mela. Thereafter, informant alongwith his sister Nirmala, brother Satish and nephew Peetam (sister's son) went to Anoopshahar mela in search of prosecutrix 'S' wherein prosecutrix met and narrated them that in the previous night at about 11:00 hours her step father Mohan Lal committed rape upon her on the bank of river Ganga. 4. On the basis of written report a Case Crime No. 331 of 2004, under Section 376 I.P.C. got registered against the accused-appellant Mohan Lal and its relevant entry was made in G.D. No. 23 at 18:30 hours on 26.11.2004. Thereafter, prosecutrix 'S' was medically examined by Dr. Reeta Singh, Medical Officer, K.M.C. Bulandshahar on 27.11.2004 at 2:15 P. M. 5. As per medical examination, her height was found 143 c.m. weight 55 K.G. and teeth 14 X 14, Breasts developed. Pubic and axillary hairs present. Thereafter, prosecutrix 'S' was medically examined by Dr. Reeta Singh, Medical Officer, K.M.C. Bulandshahar on 27.11.2004 at 2:15 P. M. 5. As per medical examination, her height was found 143 c.m. weight 55 K.G. and teeth 14 X 14, Breasts developed. Pubic and axillary hairs present. No external injury seen. On internal examination an old torn hymen present with healed up edges. Vagina admits two fingers easily. Vaginal smear taken and sent for examination of spermatozoa. No recent injury detected. X-rays of right elbow joint, right knee joint and right wrist joint advised. On 30.11.2004 Dr. G.D. Goyal, Senior Pathologist, District Hospital-Bulandshahar examined vaginal smear but no spermatozoa was seen in the supplied smear. On 30.11.2004 under the supervision of Dr. S. Garg, Senior Specialist, Government Hospital, Bulandshahar x-rays of right wrist, right elbow and right knee were done. On X-ray of right wrist lower epiphysis of radius and ulna were found partially fused. On X-ray of right elbow epiphysises around elbow were found fused and on X-ray of right knee epiphysis around knee were found fused. 6. On the basis of pathological and x-ray reports, a supplementary medical examination report of the prosecutrix 'S' was got prepared by Dr. Rita Singh on 01.12.2004 and stated that no opinion about rape can be given and the age of the prosecutrix 'S' is about 19 years. 7. The investigation of the case was conducted by S.I. Sri Vijay Singh Chaudhary, who after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Section 376 I.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of Session. Charge under Section 376 I.P.C. was framed against the accused-appellant which he denied and claimed to be tried. 8. During trial in support of the prosecution case PW1 Dr. Rita Singh, PW2 Rakesh Kumar, PW3 prosecutrix 'S' (victim), PW4 HC Dharampal Singh and PW5 S.I. Vijay Singh Chaudhary were examined. 9. PW1 Dr. Rita Singh has proved the medical examination report of the victim as Ex. Ka-2. PW2 Rakesh Kumar has proved written report as Ex. Ka-3. PW3 Prosecutrix 'S' (victim) has supported the prosecution story as alleged in the F.I.R. PW4 has proved chik F.I.R. as Ex. Ka-4 and its entry as carbon copy of GD No. 23 dated 26.11.2004 Ex. Ka-5. PW5 has proved the site plan as Ex. Ka-6, charge sheet Ex. Ka-7 and Supardaginama Ex. Ka-8. 10. Ka-3. PW3 Prosecutrix 'S' (victim) has supported the prosecution story as alleged in the F.I.R. PW4 has proved chik F.I.R. as Ex. Ka-4 and its entry as carbon copy of GD No. 23 dated 26.11.2004 Ex. Ka-5. PW5 has proved the site plan as Ex. Ka-6, charge sheet Ex. Ka-7 and Supardaginama Ex. Ka-8. 10. After close of prosecution evidence the statement of the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had been recorded by the trial court in which he admitted that Smt. Nirmala was earlier married to Ram Kishan and from this wed-lock two sons namely Peetam and Chootu and one daughter prosecutrix 'S' were born. Further, admitted that after death of Ram Kishan Smt. Nirmala married to him and she was living with him alongwith her children in Mohalla-Lodhan, Jahangirabad but he had denied the occurrence and put a defence that father of Rakesh was murdered in which he was made a witness but he had not given evidence in that case and due to this reason informant Rakesh became inimical to him and on account of this enmity a false case has been foisted upon him. 11. In defence, paper no. 15-b a certified copy of the charge-sheet of the Crime No. 188/94, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 307, 326, 302 I.P.C. against Tej Singh and Others was filed which was marked as Ex. Kha-1. 12. We have heard Sri Samit Gopal, Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State. 13. Following submissions were raised by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant:- (1) Delay in lodging the F.I.R. (2) Challenge to the testimony of the prosecutrix 'S' and PW2 Rakesh Kumar (informant). (3) Medical report does not support the prosecution story of rape. 14. Lastly contended that conviction and the sentence awarded by the trial court is too severe. 15. Further, accused-appellant has been charged for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and has been awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine additional simple imprisonment for two years in spite of the fact that there was delay in lodging the report and the same has been lodged after deliberation and consultation. It was further contended that medical report does not corroborate the prosecution version. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine additional simple imprisonment for two years in spite of the fact that there was delay in lodging the report and the same has been lodged after deliberation and consultation. It was further contended that medical report does not corroborate the prosecution version. Further, it was contended that the accused-appellant is languishing in jail for a long period and his entire life has been spoiled, so prayer for reduction and modification of sentence is made. 16. Per contra learned A.G.A. supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and contended that all the points which have been raised in this appeal, has already been dealt with by the trial judge. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence is well discussed, neither there is any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. In this case the rapist is the step father of the prosecutrix 'S'. Neither there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. nor it is the absolute mandatorily requirement that in all cases of sexual assault medical report must always corroborate with ocular version of the prosecutrix. Conviction for an offence of rape can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if the evidence of the prosecutrix found to be unimpeachable and trustworthy. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the accused-appellant and accordingly, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 17. We have given our considered thoughts to the points raised by the learned counsel for both the parties. 18. With regard to the first contention about the delay in lodging the F.I.R. as raised by learned counsel for the accused-appellant that as per evidence tendered by the prosecution it is established that on 26.11.2004 the victim met with informant Rakesh Kumar and her mother Nirmala in Anoopshahar Mela at about 10:00 A.M. and thereafter she narrated the whole story and commission of rape by the accused-appellant but the F.I.R. of the incident of rape had been lodged at 18:30 P.M. Thus, there is delay of about 08:30 hours in lodging the F.I.R. and no plausible explanation of the delay has been given by any of the prosecution witnesses which makes the prosecution story doubtful. 19. 19. We do not agree with the contention as raised by learned counsel for the accused-appellant, firstly because the allegation of the rape has been made by the prosecutrix 'S' against none other than her own step father. Keeping this fact into mind while appreciating the evidence, we find that informant Rakesh Kumar is the brother-in-law of the accused. He has deposed that Smt. Nirmala, the mother of the victim is his elder sister and the accused-appellant Mohan Lal is Devar of his younger sister Savitri. Further, the accused-appellant Mohan Lal happens to be the husband of Nirmala, mother of the victim, so we find the close relations of informant with the accused-appellant. Under this facts situation, we find it difficult to believe that a false case shall be fabricated against the accused-appellant. Further, we are adjudicating the case involving sexual assault on a teenage and further in several cases Hon'ble the Apex Court and the Allahabad High Court has held that delay in lodging the F.I.R. is not the mitigating circumstances for the accused when there are accusation of rape and the prosecution version especially relating with the rape cases cannot be thrown out. It is trite law that only on the basis of delay in lodging the F.I.R. the prosecution case cannot be doubted and on the sole ground, the prosecution case cannot be discarded. Further, it would be relevant to mention that it would be unusual in a conservative society that a woman would be used as a pawn to wreak vengeance. Further, in this case the delay of 8.30 hours cannot be said to be an inordinate delay and no such suggestion has been given to any of the witnesses that F.I.R. was lodged after deliberation or consultation. 20. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that there is no substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the delay in lodging the F.I.R. 21. The next point of contention as raised by learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to the challenge to the testimony of the prosecutrix 'S' and the informant PW2 Rakesh Kumar. 22. The next point of contention as raised by learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to the challenge to the testimony of the prosecutrix 'S' and the informant PW2 Rakesh Kumar. 22. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has vehemently contended that the time and distance of the place of occurrence from the Mela area is not found in consonance with the allegations mentioned in the F.I.R. It is further contended that prosecutrix 'S' PW3 has stated in her cross-examination that she did not disclose the factum of the rape by the accused-appellant to anyone in the Mela or the police outpost in Mela. 23. We find no substance in the arguments as it is established fact that victim is of a teenage and comes from a rural area. She being totally illiterate and innocent as grows out of her testimony does not know about length of yard, about her age and about the duration of an hour. From her testimony it transpires that she is totally innocent and illiterate girl having no idea of time and distance etc. So, we are of the view under the above said facts and situation that her testimony is required to be evaluated without any hyper technical approach. If her evidence is evaluated in totality, we can safely conclude that it cannot be said that no rape was committed on her by the accused-appellant. We find her statement to be credible and acceptable. So far as omission and discrepancies are concerned as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is a natural fact that when an incident narrated by the same person to different people on different occasion then some discrepancies and omissions and the mode of narration of the incident is bound to occur unless and until such narration in variation are not found to be abnormal or unnatural. It would not be of any help to the accused-appellant. 24. In State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Lekhraj, 1999 SCC 286, Hon'ble the Apex Court observed that:- "Parrot like statement are disfavoured and the minor variations in the accounts of the witnesses are often hallmark of the truth of their testimony." 25. Further to add as we have already observed the victim happens to be the step daughter of the accused-appellant and there is no reason to disbelieve her testimony specially in regard to sexual assault. Further to add as we have already observed the victim happens to be the step daughter of the accused-appellant and there is no reason to disbelieve her testimony specially in regard to sexual assault. Further to add prosecutrix cannot be considered to be an accomplice. 26. It is established legal proposition that in a case where the prestige of a woman or her family is involved such matter does not come to the Court immediately and such cases should not be equated with other criminal cases because of the tendency to conceal such offences as far as possible. It is trite that there is no rule of law that testimony of the victim of rape cannot be acted without corroboration of material particulars. The statement of the prosecutrix stand at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In cases of assault injury is in the physical form whereas in the cases of rape it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. It is established legal proposition that sole testimony of the prosecutrix can form basis for conviction. 27. So far as challenge to the testimony of Rakesh Kumar is concerned the learned counsel contended that the father of Rakesh Kumar was murdered and in that case accused-appellant was made a witness and when the accused-appellant refused to give statement in that case then Rakesh Kumar become inimical to him and accused-appellant got falsely implicated in this case. The above said arguments seems to be fallacious and found to be not acceptable as it has come from the testimony of PW2 Rakesh Kumar that the said murder case at the time of cross-examination was pending. Neither the accused-appellant as a witness of the murder case had been discharged nor declared hostile. So, we are unable to accept the story of false implication as contended by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant especially keeping into the fact that accused-appellant is step father of the victim/prosecutrix 'S'. 28. The next point of contention as raised by learned counsel for the accused-appellant that medical report does not support the oral evidence of the prosecutrix 'S'. 28. The next point of contention as raised by learned counsel for the accused-appellant that medical report does not support the oral evidence of the prosecutrix 'S'. We are unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the accused-appellant as raised above because it is established legal proposition that even if it is hypothetically accepted that victim lost her virginity earlier, it did not and cannot in law give license to any person to rape her. She has an absolute right to refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse with anyone and everyone because she is not a vulnerable object or prey for being sexually assaulted by anyone and everyone. Further, it is also established proposition that mere absence of spermatozoa cannot cast of doubt of correctness of the prosecution case. Further that injuries on person of prosecutrix is not sine qua non to prove the charge of rape. Further to add corroboration of medical evidence in cases of sexual assault is not mandatorily required. There is no rule of law that testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be accepted without corroboration of material particulars. So we find no substance in this argument. 29. So far as the last contention with regard to the quantum of sentence is concerned the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the sentence for the offence of rape with a minor girl as provided under the code is for a term which shall not be less than 10 years but it can be extended to life imprisonment. In this case the accused-appellant has already incarcerated in jail for a long period and he is a poor and illiterate person. He has suffered a lot during this period and has no previous criminal history and during trial and still he is confined in jail. Although we are conscious that social status, religion, race, caste or creed of the accused or victim are irrelevant for determining the gravity of the offence and awarding sentence and the gravity of the criminal act and the violence with a female needs to be severally dealt with. The incident is said to be happened in the year 2004 and the appeal has been preferred in 2006 through jail. The incident is said to be happened in the year 2004 and the appeal has been preferred in 2006 through jail. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant, we are of the view that sentence of life imprisonment is to be reduced to a term of 14 years rigorous imprisonment and the fine of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the court below and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment of 2 years is to be upheld. Resultantly, this appeal is partly allowed accordingly. 30. Let a certified copy of the judgment and order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/Jail Superintendent for necessary information and compliance report. The lower court records be returned for compliance.