JUDGMENT : Bag, J. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional. Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair on July 23, 2014 and on July 25, 2014 respectively in connection with Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2012 arising out of Sessions Case No. 104 of 2011, by which the learned Judge of the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections. 376(2)(g)/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 4,000/- in default, to suffer imprisonment for four months more. 2. The backdrop of conviction and sentence of the appellant is as follows: The victim Reema Majumder aged about 16 years and a student of Class XII of Government Senior Secondary School, Sabari Junction at Rangat came to Port Blair along with her mother and brother on May 29, 2011 for taking tuition during summer vacation of the school. She was staying in the house of her Aunt at Goalghar for the purpose of taking tuition and her mother and brother left for Rangat. The victim was introduced to the juvenile Chanpreet by their common friend, Sunny. On June 04, 2011 at about 1.00 p.m when the victim went out of house of her Aunt towards tuition centre, she met with the juvenile Chanpreet who was standing with a motorcycle near Nakshatra Inn at Goalghar. The juvenile Chanpreet offered the victim for riding motorcycle for a pleasure trip. The victim initially resisted, but ultimately succumbed to the pressure of the juvenile Chanpreet and accompanied the said juvenile as pillion rider to Marina Park near Rama Krishna Mission. The juvenile Chanpreet ultimately took the victim to the house of his friend Abdul Wajid alias Bablu (appellant) at South Point on the pretext of taking shelter from the rain. The juvenile Chanpreet came to the house of the appellant and the house was found to be under lock and key. The key of' the padlock of the house was searched by the juvenile Chanpreet after having telephonic conversation with the appellant and opened the door and took the victim inside the house. The juvenile Chanpreet offered Pepsi to the victim and both victim and the said juvenile consumed' Pepsi and thereafter the victim started suffering from dizziness and lost control of her body. The juvenile Chanpreet offered Pepsi to the victim and both victim and the said juvenile consumed' Pepsi and thereafter the victim started suffering from dizziness and lost control of her body. The juvenile Chanpreet lifted the victim on the bed and made her naked. The juvenile also stripped off his own dress including his under garments and committed sexual intercourse with the victim in spite of her resistance. 3. The victim noticed that the present appellant was taking photograph of the naked body of the victim and the act of sexual intercourse. Thereafter, the appellant came inside the room, threatened the victim to circulate the obscene photographs and video of the victim through internet and wanted to have sexual intercourse with the victim. .The victim tried to raise hue and cry and sought for help from the juvenile Chanpreet who was slapped by the present appellant. The appellant took the victim to another room latched the door from inside and held out threat by keeping knife on her neck and thereby committed sexual intercourse against the will and consent of the victim. The victim was asked to take bath and she did so and put on her dress. Thereafter, the juvenile Chanpreet asked the victim to ride the motorcycle. The victim was dropped near Rama Krishna Mission and she was given Rs. 30/- as auto fare for going back to the residence of her Aunt. The victim could not disclose this incident to her Aunt out of embarrassment and consumed phenyl for committing suicide on the next day. On June 05, 2011, the victim was shifted to G. B. Pant Hospital for medical treatment and the father of the victim was intimated who rushed to the hospital to look after the victim. The incident was reported to the police initially by the father of the victim and Sub Inspector N. S. Stalin (PW-28) recorded the oral statement of the victim on the basis of which FIR No. 223 of 2011 dated June 05, 2011 under Sections 363/342/376(g)/506 of Indian Penal Code was registered at Aberdeen Police Station. 4. The police investigated the said the said criminal case and submitted charge-sheet against the juvenile Chanpreet and the appellant on the allegation of committing offence punishable under Sections 342/363/376(2)(g)/506 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The police investigated the said the said criminal case and submitted charge-sheet against the juvenile Chanpreet and the appellant on the allegation of committing offence punishable under Sections 342/363/376(2)(g)/506 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was split up and the case record in connection "Yith the juvenile Chanpreet was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for enquiry and necessary order under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The case of the present appellant was committed to the Court of Sessions as the offences, in question, are trial by the Court of Sessions. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against the appellant and on consideration of the evidence on record, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 4,000/-, in default, to suffer imprisonment for four months more for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(g)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge is under challenged in this appeal. 5. Mr. KMB Jayapal, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that there are inconsistencies in the evidence of the victim with regard to the soft drinks consumed by her at the place of occurrence. He further contends that the bottle of Pepsi seized by the Investigating Officer was not sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis of the liquid kept in the bottle, as the bottle which was received by the expert of Central Forensic Science Laboratory was the bottle having print of "Mc Dowell's NO.1 Whisky since 1898". The next contention of Mr. Jayapal is that hymen of the victim was not ruptured which should have been done due to sexual .intercourse of the victim who is not habituated with sexual intercourse. By referring to the report of the medical examination of the appellant, Mr. Jayapal submits that in the absence of injury on the male organ of the appellant, the act of sexual intercourse of the victim by the appellant has not been established. He relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the tase of "Rahim Beg v. State of U.P." reported in AIR 1973 SC 343 in support of his above contention. Mr. He relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the tase of "Rahim Beg v. State of U.P." reported in AIR 1973 SC 343 in support of his above contention. Mr. Jayapal argues that the obscene photograph and video of the sexual intercourse of the victim were not admitted into the evidence and as such the basis of threat alleged to have been held out by the appellant for committing sexual intercourse has not been established in this case. He further argues that no injury is caused on the body of the victim even when the knife was alleged to have been used by the appellant for holding out threat to commit sexual intercourse. The last submission of Mr. Jayapal is that no semen or blood was detected on the wearing apparels of the victim and the appellant as per the report of the expert and as such the offence of gang rape alleged to have been committed by the appellant has not been established beyond doubt. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Ananda Halder, learned Counsel representing the State respondent contends that the inconsistency with regard to colour of the soft drink offered by the juvenile Chanpreet for consumption of the victim is not material as both soft drinks are of the same colour. By referring to the seizure list by which the Pepsi bottle was seized and the sample of soft drink taken out from the said bottle was kept in a separate bottle for sending to the expert, Mr. Halder submits that the bottle which was sent to the expert is not bottle of Pepsi, but a separate bottle in which sample was taken and sealed by the Investigating Officer on the spot by preparing the seizure list. He has further pointed out from the report of medical examination of the victim girl that there was one small superficial lacerated injury near anal opening of the victim, though there was no sign of injury on the hymen of the victim. According to Mr. Halder, the injury found on the victim by way of medical examination was one day old which indicates that the said injury was caused on the date of the incident. Mr. According to Mr. Halder, the injury found on the victim by way of medical examination was one day old which indicates that the said injury was caused on the date of the incident. Mr. Halder has further pointed out from the evidence of the victim that the victim was asked to take bath before wearing the dress and the sexual 'intercourse took place when both the victim and the appellant were completely naked and as such there was no scope of 1laving any semen stain or blood stain on the wearing apparels of the victim and the wearing apparels of the appellant. By referring to the evidence of the victim, Mr. Halder argues that the threat was held out by the appellant not only by stating that the naked photographs and video of the victim will be spread through internet, but also by holding knife on the neck of the victim to compel her to submit to sexual intercourse by the appellant. Mr. Halder has also pointed out from the evidence that the tower location of the cell phones used by the victim, juvenile Chanpreet and the appellant are found to be the location of house of the appellant. It South Point on the date of the incident at the relevant time. Mr. Halder has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in "Jagat Singh v. State of Punjab" reported in AIR 2000 SC 3604 in support of his contention that the acquittal of the appellant of some charges cannot stand on the way of convicting the appellant for the offence of gang rape. 7. It will be wise on our part to scan the evidence on record for proper appreciation of the rival contentions made by learned Counsel representing both parties. There is no doubt that the appellant was not known to the victim before occurrence of the incident. It transpires from the evidence of PW-18 (Bebeik Biswas) that one Sunny who happens to be the common friend of the-juvenile Chanpreet and the' victim, introduced Chanpreet to the victim a few days before the date of the incident. There is no doubt that the appellant was not known to the victim before occurrence of the incident. It transpires from the evidence of PW-18 (Bebeik Biswas) that one Sunny who happens to be the common friend of the-juvenile Chanpreet and the' victim, introduced Chanpreet to the victim a few days before the date of the incident. It is elicited from the evidence of the victim (PW-1) that on June 04, 2011 at about 1.00 p.m when the victim left the house of her Aunt at Goalghar and proceeded towards the tuition centre, the juvenile Chanpreet was sitting on a motorcycle on the way near Nakshatra Inn at Goalghar. The victim states that the juvenile Chanpreet offered her to have a pleasure riding on the motorcycle without going to the tuition centre. She further states that she initially resisted the offer of the juvenile Chanpreet, but ultimately rode the motorcycle for a pleasure trip and came to Marina Park near Rama Krishna Mission. It is further elicited from the evidence of the victim (PW-1) that the juvenile Chanpreet took her to the house of the appellant at South Point on the pretext of avoiding rain at the relevant point of time. The victim has further stated in evidence that the juvenile Chanpreet found the house of the appellant under lock and key, but he searched out the key after having conversation with the appellant over cell phone and opened the door, went inside and offered coca cola to the victim. The victim has also state a that she felt dizzy after consuming soft drinks offered by the juvenile Chanpreet and lost control of her body. She has also stated in evidence that the juvenile Chanpreet made her naked and he himself also stripped off his wearing apparels and committed sexual intercourse with the victim in spite of her resistance. 8. It further transpires from evidence of the victim (PW-1) that the appellant was found to have taken the photograph of the naked body of the victim and videography of commission of sexual intercourse. 8. It further transpires from evidence of the victim (PW-1) that the appellant was found to have taken the photograph of the naked body of the victim and videography of commission of sexual intercourse. The victim states that the appellant held out the threat of spreading of obscene phot8graphs and videos of the victim through internet and also held out threat of killing the victim by putting the knife on her neck and thereby the appellant committed sexual intercourse with the victim by taking her to another room and by latching the door from inside. The victim has stated that she had to take bath as directed by the juvenile Chanpreet and thereafter she put on her dress and rode the motorcycle of the juvenile Chanpreet who dropped her near Ramakrishna Mission and gave her Rs. 30/- as auto fare for going back to the house of her Aunt. 9. The above oral testimony of the victim (PW-1) is corroborated by the statement of the victim which was recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of the ,Code of Criminal Procedure on June 07, 2011 (Ext -2) and also statement of the victim on the basis of which F.I.R was registered (Ext-1). The only consistency in the above evidence of the victim is that the Victim stated in the FIR (Ext-1) that she was offered Pepsi, whereas she has stated in her evidence before the Court and in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that she was offered coca cola by the juvenile Chanpreet. This inconsistency in the evidence of the victim comes within the orbit of reasonable probability as the colour of both soft drinks are same and as such the evidence of the victim will not become unreliable due to such inconsistency in her evidence. 10. Now, the question for consideration of the Court is whether the evidence of the victim is reliable and trustworthy for convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. The principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in paragraph 8 of the "State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh" reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384 for evaluation of the evidence of victim of rape is as follows:- "8.................. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. The principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in paragraph 8 of the "State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh" reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384 for evaluation of the evidence of victim of rape is as follows:- "8.................. 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 introduce a 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........ " 11. It is also held by the Supreme Court in "State of Rajasthan v. Noore Khan" reported in (2000) 5 SCC 30 that when the victim of rape stating on oath that she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse or that the act was done without her consent, the same has to be believed and accepted like any other testimony, unless there is material available to draw an inference as to her consent. It is also held in this case that the absence of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix is not necessarily an evidence of falsity of allegation or an evidence of consent on the part of the prosecutrix. 12. In "B.C. Deva v. State of Karnataka" reported in (2007) 12 SCC 122 , the Supreme Court dealt with the plea of defence that the victim was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse as she did not make any attempt to resist the accused for committing the offence and the doctor did not notice any mark of injury on any part of her body. It is held by the Supreme Court that the plea of the accused is wholly unfounded and baseless and it is falsified by the subsequent conduct of the victim who rushed to her mother immediately after the incident and disclosed the entire episode to her and the victim was so depressed and humiliated that she attempted to commit suicide without bearing the insult and disrepute imprinted on her character and moral conduct by the cruel and inhuman act of the accused person. It is also held by the Supreme Court that though the report of the Gynecologist pertaining to medical examination of the victim does not disclose any evidence of sexual intercourse, yet in the absence of corroboration of medical evidence, the oral testimony of the victim which is found to be cogent, reliable, convincing and trustworthy has to be accepted by the Court. 13. By applying the above test laid down by the Supreme Court we would like to consider whether the evidence of the victim is cogent, reliable, convincing and trustworthy and whether the evidence of the victim is corroborated by other relevant evidence on record. In the instant case, the victim was so depressed and humiliated after the incident that she consumed phenyl for committing suicide. It is relevant to point out that the parents of the victim were not immediately available to the victim in the house of her Aunt at Port Blair and as such she could not disclose the incident immediately to her parents. However, when the victim was shifted to G.B. Pant Hospital for medical treatment after consumption of phenyl on the next date of the incident, PW-7, father of the victim rushed to the hospital and met the victim. The victim narrated the entire incident to her father (PW-7) and PW-21 Niva Rani Roy) and PW-8, who happens to be one lady police constable who was present with the victim in G.B. Pant Hospital. It is pertinent to point out that the victim is the daughter of sister-in-law of PW-21 who also heard about the incident from the victim in the hospital. The statement given by the victim to the police, on the basis of which FIR was registered, was narrated in presence of PW-7 i.e. the father of the victim and PW-21 i.e. Aunt of the victim. The statement given by the victim to the police, on the basis of which FIR was registered, was narrated in presence of PW-7 i.e. the father of the victim and PW-21 i.e. Aunt of the victim. Since the victim narrated the incident to her father and her aunt as soon as she got an opportunity to disclose the same and since both PW-7 and PW-21 have been examined as witnesses to corroborate the statement of victim, the facts disclosed by the victim to the PW-7 and PW-21 will be part of res gestae, and the same are relevant and admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act and the said evidence cannot be brushed aside as hearsay evidence. We can, thus, hold that the evidence of the victim is corroborated by the evidence of PW-7 and PW-21. That apart, the evidence of the victim is corroborated from the statement given by her in the FIR (Exhibit-1) and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Exhibit-2). 14. The Sub Inspector Vijay Kumar, who investigated the case, has been examined as PW-29, This witness seized the cell phone of the appellant having SIM 9679505055 under seizure list marked as Exhibit 16. This witness also seized the cell phone of juvenile Chanpreet having SIM 9679511175 under seizure list marked as Exhibit-17. PW-7, the father of victim produced the cell phone of the victim before the Investigating Officer having. SIM 9531805808. PW-29 collected the call details of the above three cell phones and tower location of the above three cell phones on the date of incident and prior to the date of incident. 15. PW-2, Sub Divisional Engineer of the BSNL proved call details of cell phone of the victim girl which are marked as Exhibits 3 & 4. PW-3, Manager of Airtel Telephone Company proved call details of cell phone of the appellant which are marked as Exhibits 5 and 6. PW-24, Manager of Bharti Airtel Ltd. proved call details of cell phone of the juvenile Chanpreet and tower location of the cell phone on the date of the incident at the material point of time which are marked as Exhibits 31 & 31/1. PW-24, Manager of Bharti Airtel Ltd. proved call details of cell phone of the juvenile Chanpreet and tower location of the cell phone on the date of the incident at the material point of time which are marked as Exhibits 31 & 31/1. On close scrutiny of the documents marked Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, 31 and 31/1, we find that there was initial conversation between the juvenile Chanpreet and the victim on the one hand and conversation between juvenile Chanpreet and the appellant on the other hand on the date of incident at the relevant point of time. It also appears from the said documents that the tower location of the above cell phones was on the same place i.e. South Point where the house of the appellant is situated and the said house is the place of occurrence. It has, thus, been established from the above evidence on record that the victim, juvenile Chanpreet and the appellant were present in the same place i.e. the house of the appellant on the date of the incident at the relevant point of time. This aspect of evidence also corroborates the oral testimony of the victim (PW-1). 16. The Investigating Officer (PW-29) seized the wearing apparels of the appellant and bed sheet from the house of the appellant and the bottle of the Pepsi and the sample of the liquid stated to be Pepsi was taken in a separate bottle at the place of occurrence under seizure list marked Exhibit-18. The bottle containing liquid stated to be Pepsi and the Pepsi bottle were produced in the Court and marked as Mat. VIII. However, only the sample of liquid stated to be Pepsi collected from the Pepsi bottle was sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. It appears from the report of the expert (PW-27) that the liquid stated to be Pepsi kept in a bottle was marked with the print "MC DOWELL'S NO.1 WHISKY SINCE 1898". The said report marked as Exhibit -29 indicates that the liquid kept in the said bottle stated to be Pepsi had alcoholic substance apart from Caffeine and Sugar molecules as detected by way of chemical analysis. The contention of Mr. Jayapal that the bottle of soft drinks which was seized as Pepsi was not sent to the Expert for chemical analysis is, thus, contrary to facts. The contention of Mr. Jayapal that the bottle of soft drinks which was seized as Pepsi was not sent to the Expert for chemical analysis is, thus, contrary to facts. What transpires from the evidence on record is that the sample of the soft drink seized by the Investigating Officer was kept in another bottle and sealed on the spot and the same was sent to the expert and found to be mixture of soft drink and alcoholic substance by way of chemical analysis, as reflected in the report of the expert marked as Exhibit-29. Thus, it has been established from the evidence on record that the soft drink offered to the victim by the juvenile Chanpreet was mixed with alcohol and thereby the victim suffered dizziness after consuming the said soft drink on the date of the incident and lost control of her body. This aspect of evidence further corroborates the evidence of the victim (PW-1) in material particulars. 17. The Investigating Officer (PW-29) took the help of PW-19 (Photographer) for taking the photographs of the scene of crime and those articles for which photographs were taken were seized under seizure list marked as Exhibit-18. It appears from the said seizure list (exhibit-18) that the Investigating Officer seized one used condom from bushes outside the house of the appellant. The victim (PW-1) has categorically stated in her evidence that the juvenile Chanpreet used condom at the time sexual intercourse and the said condom was seized by Investigating Officer under the seizure list marked Exhibit-18. The fact that the used condom was thrown out of the window by the juvenile Chanpreet after committing sexual intercourse as stated by the victim (PW-1) gets corroborated from the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-29) and from the seizure list marked Exhibit-18. The seizure was made in presence of two witnesses PW-12 and PW-17. PW-12, Rajesh Bala, who signed on the said seizure list marked Exhibit-18 did not deny his signature on the seizure list, but he stated that he signed on the seizure list in the police station at the instance of police officer. The seizure was made in presence of two witnesses PW-12 and PW-17. PW-12, Rajesh Bala, who signed on the said seizure list marked Exhibit-18 did not deny his signature on the seizure list, but he stated that he signed on the seizure list in the police station at the instance of police officer. However PW-17, N.R. Prasad who happens to be another seizure witness, has categorically stated that the used condom, wearing apparels of the appellant and Pepsi bottle and the sample of liquid stated to be Pepsi were collected in a separate bottle on the spot under the seizure list marked Exhibit -18. Since PW-12 was declared hostile and since PW-17 has corroborated the fact of seizure made by the Investigating Officer, we are inclined to discard the evidence of the PW-12 and rely on the evidence of PW-17 in order to come to the conclusion that the Investigating Officer seized the used condom from the place of occurrence and the Investigating Officer also collected the sample of liquid stated to be Pepsi in another bottle which was sealed and sent for the chemical analysis. The report of the expert has already been discussed hereinabove. The fact that PW-12 did not support the prosecution story does not lead us to infer that the seizure of used condom and sample of liquid stated to be Pepsi from the scene of crime was doubtful. Moreover, the Investigating Officer (PW-29) seized the motorcycle used by the juvenile Chanpreet for riding the victim under seizure list marked Ext.7 from the possession of father (PW-5) of PW-4 who denied to have given the motorcycle to the juvenile Chanpreet and was declared hostile for contradicting his previous statement before police and the said motorcycle was identified by the victim as the motorcycle used for committing the offence by the juvenile Chanpreet. So, the above aspect of evidence also corroborates the evidence of the victim (PW-1). 18. PW-6 (Dr. Rekha Verma) examined the victim girl at G.B. Pant Hospital on the next date of the incident and the report of the medical examination of the victim is marked exhibit-8. So, the above aspect of evidence also corroborates the evidence of the victim (PW-1). 18. PW-6 (Dr. Rekha Verma) examined the victim girl at G.B. Pant Hospital on the next date of the incident and the report of the medical examination of the victim is marked exhibit-8. It appears from the oral testimony of PW-6 and from the document marked exhibit-8 that the doctor detected one small superficial laceration of size 1 cm length near anal opening of the victim which was found approximately one day old, though the doctor opined that the hymen of the victim was circular with no fresh injury and the victim was not habituated with sexual intercourse. Nothing adverse transpires from the cross-examination to disbelieve the evidence of PW-6 and her report marked Exhibit-8 to the effect that there was an injury near the anal opening of the victim which was about one day old which corroborates the fact of causing injury on the private parts of the victim on the date of the incident. The wearing apparels of the victim and the vaginal swab, rectal swab and pubic hair of the victim were seized under seizure list marked as Exhibit 10 and Exhibit-9 respectively, which were subsequently sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. 19. PW-10 (Dr. H. Charles) examined the juvenile Chanpreet and prepared the report marked Exhibit-11. Similarly, he also examined the appellant medically and prepared the report marked Exhibit-12. It appears from the oral testimony of the PW-10 and the report marked Exhibit-12 that the appellant did not sustain any injury on his male organ, but he was capable of committing sexual intercourse. The pubic hair of the appellant and the pubic hair of, juvenile Chanpreet were seized by preparing two separate seizure lists marked Exts. 14 and 15 respectively, which were sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. It appears from the report submitted by Central Forensic Science Laboratory (Exhibit-29) that no semen stain or blood stain was detected from the wearing apparels of the victim or the appellant or the juvenile Chanpreet. The contention of Mr. Jayapal is that there must have been stain of semen or blood on the wearing apparels of the victim and the appellant, had there been forcible sexual intercourse on the victim who is aged about 16 years and who is not habitual with sexual intercourse. The contention of Mr. Jayapal is that there must have been stain of semen or blood on the wearing apparels of the victim and the appellant, had there been forcible sexual intercourse on the victim who is aged about 16 years and who is not habitual with sexual intercourse. We have already pointed out from the evidence of the victim (PW-1) that she had to take bath immediately after sexual intercourse before wearing the dress on the scene of crime and the sexual intercourse took place when both the victim and the appellant were completely naked and as such the question of getting semen stain and blood stain on the wearing apparels of the victim and the appellant and on the pubic hair of them does not arise at all. It is relevant to point out that the Investigating Officer did not give any prayer to the expert of Central Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison of the pubic hairs of the victim with the pubic hairs of the appellant and as such no such report is forthcoming before the court. In view of our above findings, we do not find any substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the absence of stain of semen or stain of blood in the wearing apparels of the victim and wearing apparels of the appellant and on the bed sheet of the appellant will lead to the inference of innocence of the appellant. 20. The medical report submitted by PW-6 who examined the victim girl indicates that there was no injury on the hymen of the victim and the report of the medical examination of the appellant prepared by PW-10 indicates that there was no injury on the male organ of the appellant. It is held by the Supreme Court in "Rahim Beg v. State of U.P." reported in AIR 1973 SC 343 that the absence of injury on the male organ of the accused would lead to the inference of his innocence when the accused is alleged to have committed rape on a victim aged about 10 or 12 years. In this report cited by Mr. Jayapal, the hymen of the victim was captured, but no injury was found on the male organ of the accused and thereby the accused was found to be innocent. In this report cited by Mr. Jayapal, the hymen of the victim was captured, but no injury was found on the male organ of the accused and thereby the accused was found to be innocent. In the present case, the victim is 16 years old and a student of Class XII of the Higher Secondary School, whereas in the reported case the victim was minor aged about 10 to 12 years. So, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of "Rahim Beg v. State of U.P" (supra) cited by Mr. Jayapal and as such the ratio of the said report cannot be made applicable in the facts of the present case. 21. Non-availability of any evidence of injury on the hymen of the victim cannot lead to the innocence of the appellant in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in "B.C. Deva v. State of Karnataka" (supra) wherein the report of the Gynaecologist pertaining to the medical examination of the victim did not disclose any evidence of sexual intercourse, but the Supreme Court found that the oral testimony of the victim was cogent, reliable, convincing and trustworthy. 22. On an analysis of the entire evidence on record, we find that the evidence of the victim (PW-1) is convincing, reliable and trustworthy and as such we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Nor can we persuade ourselves to assign any special reason to reduce minimum sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. It is pertinent to point out that there was common intention of both the juvenile Chanpreet and the appellant in committing sexual intercourse with the victim who fem so insulted and humiliated that she attempted to commit suicide by consuming phenyl on the next date of the incident. 23. Accordingly, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair in Sessions Trial Case No. 18 of 2012 arising out of Sessions Case No. 104 of 2011 is hereby affirmed. The appeal is, thus, dismissed without any order as to costs. 23. Accordingly, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair in Sessions Trial Case No. 18 of 2012 arising out of Sessions Case No. 104 of 2011 is hereby affirmed. The appeal is, thus, dismissed without any order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent down to the trial Court along with lower courts record for favour of information and necessary action. Urgent certified copy of this judgment and order be supplied to the learned counsel for the respective parties on compliance of all legal formalities. Gupta, J. : I agree.