JUDGMENT : The appellant herein is the accused in S.C.No.274 of 2007 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu, and he stands convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo Seven Years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo further 3 months simple imprisonment and also convicted for the offence under Section 417 of IPC and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.100/- and in default to undergo further one month simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal before this Court. 2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1, the de facto complainant namely, Prema is below the age of 16 years and the accused is 23 years old and he is residing in the opposite house of the victim girl. The mother of the victim girl died and the victim girl is living with her father. The brothers of the victim girl are residing separately in the same village. When the father of the victim girl goes for job, the victim girl alone was in her house and taking advantage of the loneliness of P.W.1/victim girl, the accused, on promise to marry her, had sexual intercourse on several occasions and when she became pregnant, P.W.1 compelled the accused to marry her. However, the accused refused to marry her on the pretext that his elder sister is yet to be married and told the victim girl that after his sister's marriage, he will marry her. When P.Ws.3 and 4, who are the father and brother respectively of P.W.1, questioned about the physical changes in the body, the victim girl/P.W.1 had disclosed the act of the accused which let to the panchayat convened in the Village by P.W.5-Dhanapaul, who is a panchayat or and on failure of panchayat, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have lodged Ex.P.1-complaint with the police and on the basis of the said complaint, the respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.62 of 2007 for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and prepared First Information Report-Ex.P.5 and after completion of all formalities, final report was filed against the appellant herein/accused for the offences under Sections 417 and 376 of IPC. 3. 3. The suggestive case of the defence is one of total denial. To buttress the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.12. On behalf of the accused, no witness was examined and no document was marked. The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances and he denied his complicity in the alleged crime. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, found the accused guilty on both counts and convicted under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC and sentenced him as already stated above. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused could contend that there is a considerable delay of 18 months in filing the complaint and even according to the evidence of P.W.1, it was a consensual and not against her will and therefore, the trial Court erred in convicting the appellant/accused. Furthermore, when the accused was facing the charge under Section 417 of IPC, in the absence of any DNA test for the child, the trial Court has erred in convicting the accused on the said charge and further, in the absence of any radiology report of the victim girl, the determination of age arrived at by the trial Court is not sustainable in law and hence, he seeks to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 6. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) made submissions in support of the judgment of the trial Court. 7. From the prosecution witnesses, it is seen that P.W.1 is the victim girl while the father and brother of the victim girl were examined as P.Ws.3 and 4. Panchayat or, who said to have conducted panchayat on 15.03.2007, was examined as P.W.5 and P.Ws.6 and 7 are the police personnels, who have accompanied the victim girl and the accused to the hospital for medical examination and P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer. P.W.2 and P.W.11 are the medical evidence who examined the victim girl and the accused and gave the medical certificates. P.W.9 is the Headmaster (Retired), who has given the School Admission Register-Ex.P.9 showing the date of birth of the victim girl as 02.01.1991. 8. P.W.2 and P.W.11 are the medical evidence who examined the victim girl and the accused and gave the medical certificates. P.W.9 is the Headmaster (Retired), who has given the School Admission Register-Ex.P.9 showing the date of birth of the victim girl as 02.01.1991. 8. On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 given both in the chief and cross examinations, it could be seen that her evidence is clear and cogent with regard to the act of the accused on her body and the words spoken to by the accused to convince the victim girl/P.W.1 to have her consensual intercourse. Further, from the evidence of P.W.1, it is seen that the victim girl had studied upto 5th standard and the accused is residing in the opposite house in the very same street which is so near not even 100 feet, away. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 is clear and natural with regard to the sexual act committed by the accused on her body and the promise made by him to marry the victim girl. With regard to the lodging of the complaint/Ex.P.1, the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 and 5, who have clearly deposed about the questioning of the physical changes in the body of P.W.1 and subsequent disclosure of information by P.W.1/victim girl regarding the act of sexual act committed by the accused and convening of panchayat by one Mr.Dhanapaul and the statement made by both the parties in the panchayat and lodging of the complaint-Ex.P.1 on 18.03.2007. Thus, this Court finds that lodging of the complaint is only on 18.03.2007 i.e., three days after the panchayat. It remains to be stated that the witnesses are village people rural and rustic. Admittedly, there was no one in the house of P.W.1 as her mother had died. The father of the victim girl leaving her alone in the house went for his job. Taking advantage of absence of the elders in the home, the accused, who is residing just opposite to the house of the victim girl, seem to have committed the offence. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would further contend that there is a considerable delay in filing the complaint. Taking advantage of absence of the elders in the home, the accused, who is residing just opposite to the house of the victim girl, seem to have committed the offence. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would further contend that there is a considerable delay in filing the complaint. After perusing the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 5 and taking note of the rural background of the witnesses and also the poor education of the victim girl/P.W.1 and in the absence of any worthwhile being elucidated in the cross-examination to discredit the evidence with regard to the time lapsed in lodging the complaint, I am of the considered view that the finding arrived at by the trial Court that the delay has been properly explained and that is not fatal to the prosecution case does not warrant any interference at this appellate stage. 10. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused is that the sexual act is with the consent of P.W.1/victim girl. 11. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would contend that the age of the victim girl, at the time of the alleged offence, is below 16 years and therefore, consent is immaterial. 12. Admittedly, during the examination, Dr.Parasakthi/P.W.2, who had examined the victim girl, found that her hymen is not intact and the Scan Report is Ex.P.2 which confirms that the victim girl is pregnant and the child is 30 weeks' old and since P.W.1 was pregnant, she objected for taking radiology stating that it may affect the child and for determination of the age, she was not sent for radiology and the documents Exs.P.2, P.3 and P.4 were marked. The prosecution, in order to lend support the prosecution theory, has examined P.W.9, the Retired Head Master of Adhi Dravidar Welfare Primary School and marked Ex.P.9-School Admission Register, wherein, the date of birth of the victim girl was shown as 02.01.1991. It remains to be stated that P.W.1, both in her evidence as well as in the complaint-Ex.P.1, has categorically stated about her date of birth and the Headmaster (Retired) of the concerned School/P.W.9 also stated about the date of birth of the victim girl/P.W.1. It remains to be stated that P.W.1, both in her evidence as well as in the complaint-Ex.P.1, has categorically stated about her date of birth and the Headmaster (Retired) of the concerned School/P.W.9 also stated about the date of birth of the victim girl/P.W.1. In the absence of anything in the cross examination with regard to the alleged age of the victim girl/P.W.1 and in view of the clear and cogent evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 coupled with the evidence of School Headmaster (Retired)/P.W.9 and also coupled with Ex.P.9, the trial Court came to a conclusion that the date of birth of the victim girl/P.W.1 is 02.01.1991 and accordingly, held that on the date of the alleged offence, the victim girl/P.W.1 is below the age of 16 years and therefore, the plea raised by the defence that P.W.1 is a consenting party is hereby rejected. 13. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the Sessions Court and taking note of the version put forward by P.W.1 and her father P.W.3 coupled with the document Ex.P.7-School Admission Register, this Court is of the considered view that on the date of the alleged offence, P.W.1 is below the age of 16 years and as such, even if she has given her consent, it is immaterial and accordingly, this Court finds that the finding arrived at by the trial Court that the age of the victim girl/P.W.1 is below 16 years, is hereby confirmed and so also the age of the accused as spoken to by Doctor under Ex.P.12 viz., that the accused is more than 21 years is also hereby confirmed and hence, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the determination of age of the victim girl and the accused by the trial Court is improper which does not stand to legal reasoning and the finding arrived at by the trial Court based upon the documentary evidence is acceptable. 14. The next contention is that in the absence of D.N.A. report for the child which is said to have been died within 20 hours of birth, this Court is of the considered view that on the facts and circumstances the same, which does not arise for consideration, since the child was reported dead within 20 hours of birth. 14. The next contention is that in the absence of D.N.A. report for the child which is said to have been died within 20 hours of birth, this Court is of the considered view that on the facts and circumstances the same, which does not arise for consideration, since the child was reported dead within 20 hours of birth. When that being the case, the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused does not arise for consideration on factual matrix. Accordingly, the prosecution has clearly demonstrated that on promise to marry the victim girl/P.W.1, the accused had sexual intercourse with P.W.1, who at the time of committing the offence, is below the age of 16 years. Consequently, the question as to whether P.W.1 had given her consent or not is immaterial and based upon the medical evidence of the Doctors, the evidence of P.W.1 prosecutrix inspires the confidence of the Court, the trial Court has correctly came to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and held that the appellant herein/accused had committed the offences under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, this Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu, in S.C.No.274 of 2007, dated 29.06.2009 is confirmed.