JUDGMENT : A.K. Mishra, J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dtd.25.08.2006 of learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar, Camp Court at Anandapur in Sessions Trial Case No.262 of 2005 convicting the accused - appellant U/s.376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim was an agnatic relation of the accused. She was pursuing her study in Class-VII in the year 2005. Prior to seven or eight months of lodging of F.I.R., i.e. on 15.09.2005, the accused, while the family members of the victim were witnessing television show, called the victim to backside of the house and committed rape. Out of threat, the victim continued to maintain silence. Thereafter the accused also committed rape of victim on five to six occasions. The victim became pregnant. Subsequently when pregnancy became visible and pain became unbearable, she was taken by her father to Anandapur Hospital where factum of pregnancy was confirmed. Then the victim disclosed before her parents implicating the accused as author of rape. She lodged an F.I.R. in Ghasipura Police Station which was registered as Ghasipura P.S. Case No.154 dtd.15.09.2005. Investigation was ensued. The victim gave birth a male child. Medical examination was conducted. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Learned S.D.J.M., Anandapur took cognizance in G.R. Case No.424 of 2005. The accused was produced on being arrested on 21.09.2005. Trial was taken up in the Court of Sessions after commitment of the case. 3. In support of its case, prosecution examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. Out of prosecution witnesses, P.W.5 is the victim, her parents are examined as P.W.1 and 2, P.W.4 is her classmate. P.W.3 is the teacher who proved admission register in support of date of birth of the victim. P.W.6 and 8 are doctors. P.W.9 is the investigating officer and P.W.7 is a witness to seizure. F.I.R., medical examination report and admission register amongst others were exhibited vide Ext.1 to Ext.10. 4. Defence took the plea of denial. No witness was examined on behalf of defence. 5. P.W.6 and 8 are doctors. P.W.9 is the investigating officer and P.W.7 is a witness to seizure. F.I.R., medical examination report and admission register amongst others were exhibited vide Ext.1 to Ext.10. 4. Defence took the plea of denial. No witness was examined on behalf of defence. 5. Learned trial court, while analyzing the evidence on record, found as follows:- (i) The victim was aged about 12 years by the time of incident and her date of birth was 4.6.1993; (ii) The testimony of victim was trust-worthy and the corroboration from reliable witnesses like parents and doctors who deposed that victim had given birth to a male child were acceptable; (iii) The defence plea of enmity between the parties to doubt the prosecution case was not believable. Accordingly accused was held guilty and sentenced as noted above. 6. Learned Amicus Curiae Miss Anima Kumari Dei would submit that the delay in lodging of F.I.R. for about eight months is nothing but an expression of victim's consent to the sexual act with the accused and for that the appreciation of evidence by learned trial court cannot be said to be in proper perspective. It is also submitted that the plea of enmity between the parties and contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are sufficient to create a doubt in the prosecution case and for that the conviction of accused is unsustainable. 7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel Mr. S. Das repelled the above contention referring the evidence on record and stated that the sole testimony of victim is sufficient to base conviction and the consent is inconsequential when minor is at victim's end. 8. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae and learned Addl. Standing Counsel and carefully perused the evidence on record. 8-(a). P.W.8 the doctor has stated that on 15.09.2005, he examined the victim on police requisition and on 16.09.2005 the victim had given birth to a male child. P.W.6, another doctor has testified that he had conducted ossification test of the victim and found that victim was 11 to 14 years by 17.09.2005. P.W.3, the teacher who proved the admission register of Dhokota Nodal U.P. School had stated that the date of birth of victim was 14.06.1993. The parents of victim have stated that the victim was aged about 12 years by then. P.W.3, the teacher who proved the admission register of Dhokota Nodal U.P. School had stated that the date of birth of victim was 14.06.1993. The parents of victim have stated that the victim was aged about 12 years by then. Neither ossification test nor school register shows that victim was more than 14 years old in the year 2005. Ergo, taking all the evidence into consideration, it can be said that victim was below 16 years of age by the time of incident in the year 2005. 8-(b). The minor victim was raped. She was enceinte. She stated that accused was the author of such act. There is no reason to disbelieve her. She was a student. Accused has threatened her. Threat of accused cannot be said to have no impact on her. It is natural that when the act of rape could not be concealed, the victim had disclosed the culpability of the accused where after F.I.R. was lodged. This is commensurable to the ordinary conduct of a minor girl and living style of the victim's family. The alleged act was of the year 2005 and the conduct of witnesses cannot be tested in the present day context. The plea of enmity to disbelieve the witnesses is not probable for the reason that parents would not like to stake the chastity of their minor girl to rope an innocent in a false accusation of rape. Whatever enmity has been stated by P.W.1 and 2, that had origin after the lodging of F.I.R. So the testimonies of victim and her parents cannot be seen with tainted eye. There is no material discripancies in their testimonies. Evidence is in abundance to prove that the innocence of victim was lured. Consequentially, the minor victim delivered a baby. Rape was real. Delay to disclose the circumstances was real. Reality makes her testimony trustworthy. The prosecution is found to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 9. Basing upon the wholly reliable sole testimony of victim, conviction of accused is sustainable. The sentence awarded is the minimum as prescribed U/s.376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code. In that view of the matter no interference in this appeal is warranted. The conviction of appellant is confirmed and sentence awarded is maintained. Accordingly the CRLA stands dismissed.