JUDGMENT : Jayachandran, J. All crimes evince depravity, the most contemptible being the father committing rape on daughter - the protectee perishing in the jaws of the protector himself. “Rape is not merely a physical assault - it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female.” [State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh - (1996) 2 SCC 384 ]. 2. We, in this appeal, are concerned with the allegation of a stepfather committing rape on stepdaughter. 3. The accused in SC No.14/2014 of the Additional Sessions Court No.1 (Special Court for trial of offences against Children), Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant herein. He faced indictment for offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide the impugned judgment dated 11.3.2016, he was found guilty and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2 lakhs, with a default clause to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two more years. 4. The prosecution case is as follows: The victim girl/PW3 was residing along with her step father (accused), mother and her sister. The accused used to behave indecently and caressed her breasts, while she was 14 years old, studying in 9th standard. One day, the accused compelled the victim to accompany him to a nearby forest like area to collect reeds for thatching their house and raped her. On 4.6.2012, the incident was repeated at the same place, when the victim was returning along with the accused, after collecting T.C from the Mithranikethan School. Besides, the accused used to lick the vagina of the victim girl, thus committing the offence under Section 376 of the Penal Code. 5. The prosecution paraded 12 witnesses, who were examined as PWs 1 to 12, through whom Exts.P1 to P13 were marked. Five material objects were marked as MO1 to MO5. To convict the accused, the learned Sessions Judge essentially relied upon the evidence tendered by the victim girl (PW3), supported by the medical evidence adduced through PW2/doctor, further corroborated by the evidence tendered by PW5 and PW7, through whom the crime got exposed. 6. Heard Sri. Ranju Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. S. Ambika Devi, learned Special Government Pleader for atrocities against Women & Children for the respondent State. 7. 6. Heard Sri. Ranju Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. S. Ambika Devi, learned Special Government Pleader for atrocities against Women & Children for the respondent State. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/ accused first contended that the age of the victim is not proved in accordance with law. Ext.P5 admission register cannot be reckoned in proof of the date of birth of the victim, going by the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajan v. State of Kerala [ 2021 (4) KLT 274 ] and Alex v. State of Kerala [ 2021 (4) KLT 480 ]. Once the age is not established, the approach to adjudge the guilt should be on a substantially different dimension, where the question of consent looms large, contends the learned Counsel. As could be seen from Ext.P2 medical certificate, there is no injury on the body of the victim. Therefore, the physical relationship, if any, can only be consensual. Learned counsel then contended that the victim's version as regards molestation is highly doubtful. As per her narration in Ext.P3 FIS, she was molested thrice, whereas it was on four occasions as per the history shown in Ext.P2 medical certificate. Again, the victim’s version that she was molested twice in an open forest like area in broad daylight can hardly be believed. The version that she was molested at the house, where her own mother and sister are residing, is equally unbelievable. PW9, the neighbour, in whose house the victim would take asylum to rescue herself from the advances made by the accused, turned hostile to prosecution. The evidence tendered by the victim is not of a sterling quality, so as to rest a conviction on the basis of her sole testimony. There is no corroborative evidence forthcoming, in absentia, the conviction of the accused cannot be sustained. As a matter of fact, the accused and the mother of the victim questioned her, alleging relationship with one Prajeesh - the son of the sister of the accused and warned her. It is in retaliation that the subject false case has been foisted against the appellant/accused. At any rate, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. On the above premise, learned counsel for the accused/appellant seeks reversal of the judgment impugned. 8. It is in retaliation that the subject false case has been foisted against the appellant/accused. At any rate, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. On the above premise, learned counsel for the accused/appellant seeks reversal of the judgment impugned. 8. Per contra, the defense allegations were refuted by the learned Special Government Pleader for atrocities against Women and Children. Learned counsel pointed out that PW3 gave a graphic narration of the overt acts constituting the offence committed by her stepfather, which withstood the cross examination. Her evidence is of a sterling quality. Learned Special Government Pleader cautioned us that the courts should deal with cases of rape with utmost sensitivity, without being swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix. It was pointed out that insofar as the offence under Section 376 is concerned, the alleged discrepancy, as regards the number of times the victim girl was subjected to molestation, is of no moment. It was brought to our notice that the victim is a tribal girl. Learned Special Government Pleader placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Asha Ram [ AIR 2006 SC 381 ] to contend that it is well within the limits to rest a conviction based on the solitary testimony of victim, whose evidence is more reliable than that of an injured witness, notwithstanding the fact that the version of the victim (PW3) is amply supported by medical evidence, as also, the evidence tendered by PW5, her teacher. It was also argued that, where rape is committed by father on daughter, a lenient view in the matter of sentence is wholly out of question, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. 9. Before adverting to the evidence tendered by the witnesses in detail, we will first address the contention regarding due proof of age of the victim. PW4 is the headmaster of Meenankal Government Tribal High School, who produced Ext.P4 extract of school admission register in proof of the age of the victim. As per Ext.P4, the date of birth of the victim is 20.5.1998. It is elicited in cross examination that the date of birth spoken to by PW4 is only as per records. 10. PW4 is the headmaster of Meenankal Government Tribal High School, who produced Ext.P4 extract of school admission register in proof of the age of the victim. As per Ext.P4, the date of birth of the victim is 20.5.1998. It is elicited in cross examination that the date of birth spoken to by PW4 is only as per records. 10. Learned counsel contended that Ext.P4 extract of the school admission register is not one issued from the school first attended by the victim and, therefore, not secondary evidence as contemplated under Section 63 of the Evidence Act. In Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana [ (2013) 7 SCC 263 ], what is recognised as due proof of age is a certificate from the school first attended, as provided for in Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, submits the Counsel. 11. We find considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. As a matter of fact, this issue was the subject matter of the following decisions of this Court: 1. Rajan v. State of Kerala ( 2021 (4) KLT 274 ] 2. Alex v. State of Kerala [ 2021 (4) KLT 480 ] 3. Madhu v. State of Kerala [ 2021 (6) KLT 45 ] At the request of Smt. S. Ambika Devi, learned Special Government Pleader for atrocities against Women and Children, this Court reconsidered the issue in K. Raghavan v. State of Kerala [ 2021 (6) KLT 427 ] and confirmed the dictum laid down in Rajan, Alex and Madhu (supra). We find the following infirmities with Ext.P4 extract of admission register, proved through PW4: (a) Ext.P4 extract of admission register is not issued by the School first attended by the victim. As disclosed from Ext.P4, the victim joined Government Tribal High School, Meenankal in Std.X and the date of admission was 4.6.2021. Therefore, the date of birth shown in Ext.P4 cannot be reckoned as due proof of the age of the victim, in the light of the dictum laid down in the judgments above referred. (b) PW4, the Headmaster of the Government Tribal High School, Meenankal was cross examined to depose that date of birth is entered into only as per records, which would amplify that PW4 has no authentic knowledge regarding the date of birth of the victim. (b) PW4, the Headmaster of the Government Tribal High School, Meenankal was cross examined to depose that date of birth is entered into only as per records, which would amplify that PW4 has no authentic knowledge regarding the date of birth of the victim. (c) The mother of the child was not examined to prove the date of birth of the victim. Other witnesses examined are neither competent to speak, nor spoke about the age of the victim. A self serving assertion of her date of birth by the victim herself, even in the absence of cross examination, is of little avail as regards proof of age of the victim. (d) As held in Biradmal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit [(1988) Suppl. SCC 604], no witness having special knowledge about the date of birth of the person concerned was examined in support of the entry contained in Ext.P4 certificate. Thus, the truth of the facts stated in Ext.P4 certificate is not seen vouchsafed. We, therefore, accept the appellant's contention that the victim's age is not proved in accordance with law. 12. Now, we will examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution to ascertain whether the core of the prosecution allegations have been proved beyond reasonable doubt or not. 13. PW1 is the Assistant Surgeon, CHC, Palode, who examined the accused and issued Ext.P1 potency certificate. PW2 is the Assistant Surgeon, Woman and Child Hospital, Thycaud, who examined the victim girl and issued Ext.P2 medical certificate. She deposed that upon examination, it was found that the hymen was torn (old) and the vagina admitted two fingers. PW2 deposed that there is evidence of past vaginal penetration and that tearing of hymen is a positive indication of the same. PW2 also spoke about the history given by the victim. It is recorded in Ext.P2 medical certificate to the effect that her stepfather was molesting her for the past six months and that she was subjected to sexual intercourse on four occasions, of which the last was on 4.6.2012. PW2 identified the victim and issued Ext.P2 medical certificate. In the cross examination, it was elicited that there was no mark of any resistance on the part of the victim. Absence of reddish tinge in the vagina is explained by PW2 by stating that the same need not be present, since there is past history of sexual intercourse. 14. PW2 identified the victim and issued Ext.P2 medical certificate. In the cross examination, it was elicited that there was no mark of any resistance on the part of the victim. Absence of reddish tinge in the vagina is explained by PW2 by stating that the same need not be present, since there is past history of sexual intercourse. 14. PW3 is the victim and we will discuss her evidence in detail, while addressing the main point. 15. The effect of evidence tendered by PW4, who issued Ext.P4 extract of school admission register has already been discussed above. 16. PW5 is the class teacher to whom the incident of molestation was first disclosed by PW3. Her evidence, being significant, will also be discussed while addressing the core issue. 17. PW6 is the Village Officer, who issued Ext.P5 site plan. PW7 is the Scheduled Tribe promoter attached to the Tribal Extension Office functioning at Aryanadu Grama Panchayat. His evidence will also be referred to while addressing the evidence tendered by PW3 and PW5. PW8 is the attester to Ext.P6 scene mahazar. PW9 is the neighbour of the victim. As per the version of PW3, she used to run away from her house when her father repeated attempts of molestation and on one or two occasions, she took asylum in the house of her neighbour, PW9. However, PW9 turned hostile to the prosecution as regards the above version of PW3. PW10 is the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Biology Division, Thiruvananthapuram, through whom Ext.P7 FSL report was marked. Seminal stains and spermatozoa were detected on item No.5, which was the lungi worn by the accused, on which nothing turns in favour of the prosecution, according to us. Presence of seminal stains and spermatozoa, by itself, has no casual connection, whatsoever, with the prosecution allegation of molestation. PW12 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered Ext.P3(a) FIR, Ext.P3(b) body note forming part of the same. PW11 is the investigating officer, who spoke about the various legal formalities of the investigation, about which reference will be made as and when required during the course of our discussion. 18. This Court will now address, in the light of the evidence adduced by PW3, PW5 and PW7, as to how the prosecution allegations proceed. 19. PW11 is the investigating officer, who spoke about the various legal formalities of the investigation, about which reference will be made as and when required during the course of our discussion. 18. This Court will now address, in the light of the evidence adduced by PW3, PW5 and PW7, as to how the prosecution allegations proceed. 19. PW3 deposed that she was residing in her house, along with her mother Sindhu, younger sister, Rajimol and her stepfather/accused, Rajan at a place by name Podiyakala, at Vithura. PW3’s mother suffered burn injuries pursuant to pouring of kerosene, while she was studying in IXth standard at Mithranikethan School, Vellanad. Since she had to take care of the household affairs, she could not write the examinations. PW3 stated that her stepfather used to misbehave with her. PW3 was asked to accompany the accused to a neighbouring forest like area to collect reeds to thatch their house. When PW3 refused, she was beaten and she accompanied him out of fear. While collecting reeds, the accused caressed her breasts and spoke indecently. She was made to lie over the leaves and the accused removed her dress. When she opposed, she was again beaten. Then, the accused inserted his penis into her vagina. She was aged 14 years and on her menstrual periods then. A white liquid got smeared in her vaginal area. PW3 was again beaten when she told that she will report the matter to the mother. She was threatened that if the matter is divulged to anybody, the accused would denigrate her chastity, in the name of others. The accused used to caress her breasts on earlier occasions also, while she was working in the kitchen. Although she reported the matter to the mother, she did not believe it. The incident which took place in the forest like area was also reported to the mother. However, she blamed PW3 as having approached the accused, thus maintaining that the accused is a person of good character. Nevertheless, her mother questioned the accused once, by asking him whether he wants both the mother and daughter, to which the accused replied that the daughter is better. The accused raped PW3 again, when they went to collect T.C from Mithranikethan school at the same forest like area, which is an isolated place. PW3 then joined the Tribal High School, Meenankal in the Xth standard. The accused raped PW3 again, when they went to collect T.C from Mithranikethan school at the same forest like area, which is an isolated place. PW3 then joined the Tribal High School, Meenankal in the Xth standard. While PW3 was alone in the house, the accused used to lick her vagina on several occasions, which he started after the first incident of rape at the forest like area. Off late, when the accused makes sexual advances, PW3 used to run away from her home. Occasionally, she took asylum in the house of PW9. At the instance of her grandfather and uncle, PW3 was taken to Palode. However, she was brought back to ensure continuity of studies. When she was brought back, the accused came running and threatened PW3 that he will kill her mother, if his acts and deeds are disclosed to her uncle. When the uncle and others left, the accused beat PW3 severely and her books were torn off. On the next day, PW3 divulged the matter to her class teacher (PW5), who reported the matter to the Police. PW3 did not divulge complete details to Police out of fear. She was taken to the Doctor, who examined her and issued Ext.P2 medical certificate, where PW2 identified her signature. She told the Doctor that the last incident of sexual contact was on 4.6.2012 and that the accused had molested her on four occasions, twice at the house in the night and twice in the forest like area. 20. In the statement given to the police, PW3 referred to only three instances of molestation. PW3 would explain this by saying that she did not disclose fully out of fear. PW3 would state that certain matters were disclosed to PW9 and also to the Tribal promoter. PW3 stated that her date of birth is 20.5.1998. She identified Ext.P3 FIS given to the Police. 21. In cross examination, PW3 would state that she does not remember the name of her class teacher. It is elicited that she disclosed the matter to the teacher while at school and it was the teacher who informed the matter to the Police. She was questioned by the police on 30.7.2012. Thereafter, she was taken to the police station, along with the teacher and her statement was recorded. PW3 does not remember whether the statement was read over to her. She was questioned by the police on 30.7.2012. Thereafter, she was taken to the police station, along with the teacher and her statement was recorded. PW3 does not remember whether the statement was read over to her. She denied the suggestion that she was instructed by the lawyers at Nirbhaya, from where she came to give evidence. PW3 would admit that she had not stated in her former statement that the accused threatened her of denigrating her chastity in the name of others. However, the above omission is not a significant one, capable of touching the core of the prosecution case. But the omission in her former statement, as admitted by PW3 in cross examination, about the accused licking her vagina is relevant and significant. Therefore, that part of the factual allegation, as constituting the offence under Section 376, has to be discounted. Nevertheless, important factual allegations regarding two incidents of rape in the forest like area and at the house stands unshaken in the cross examination. Certain other facts put to PW3 as alleged omissions cannot be considered, firstly for the reason that the omission of such facts in the former statement are denied by PW3 and secondly, such facts have not been put to PW12, the officer who recorded her former statement; to prove the omissions. It is seen suggested that the accused and the mother of PW3 scolded PW3 in connection with her relationship with one Prajeesh (son of the sister of the accused) and PW3 is therefore making false allegations against the accused. PW3 denied this suggestion. 22. On perusal of the evidence tendered by PW3, we find no contradiction/omission, worth the name, except the one referred above, the effect of which has already been discussed. The core of the prosecution case remains unshattered in the cross examination. As a matter of fact, there is no serious cross examination of the incriminating statements made by PW3 about the incident of molestation in the forest like area. No contradiction is seen marked. We, therefore, conclude that the evidence tendered by PW3 inspires confidence in our minds as regards the core of the prosecution case. As rightly submitted by the learned Special Govt. Pleader, the number of occasions where PW3 was molested by the accused is not of much importance in constituting the offence under Section 376. No contradiction is seen marked. We, therefore, conclude that the evidence tendered by PW3 inspires confidence in our minds as regards the core of the prosecution case. As rightly submitted by the learned Special Govt. Pleader, the number of occasions where PW3 was molested by the accused is not of much importance in constituting the offence under Section 376. It is true that PW3 refers to three such instances in her former statement, whereas in Ext.P2 medical certificate, as against the history, PW3 would refer to four instances of molestation. This, according to us, cannot impact the prosecution version in any manner, once a single instance of molestation is proved satisfactorily. 23. The next evidence to be discussed is that of PW5, the class teacher of standard XB, Government Tribal High School, Meenankal. Pw5 stated that PW3 was her student in standard XB and she saw PW3 crying in the class on 29.7.2012. When she enquired, PW3 answered that her textbooks were burnt by her father on the previous day. PW5 pacified PW3 that she would purchase new books for her. When PW5 enquired about the reason, PW3 first said that her father did so under the influence of alcohol. However, PW5 again saw PW3 crying when she came to the class for the first period. Thereafter, PW5 and one Sreena called the girl and again enquired, whereupon she disclosed her father's sexual advances to her. PW3 spoke about the incident, where her father molested her when she was studying in Mithranikethan School, Vellanad. PW5 informed the matter to PW7, the Scheduled Tribe promoter. The mother of PW3, was called to the school. The police, who came to the school, interacted with the girl (PW3) in the presence of her mother and PW5. On the next day, PW5 went to police station, along with PW3 and her mother, where the statement of PW3 was recorded. 24. In cross examination, PW5 would state that her statement was also recorded, and that the police was informed by the Scheduled Tribe Department. Here also, it is elicited that the incident of molestation while proceeding to Palode, as spoken to by PW3 to PW5, which PW5 referred to in chief examination, does not find a place in her former statement. In cross examination, PW5 would state that her statement was also recorded, and that the police was informed by the Scheduled Tribe Department. Here also, it is elicited that the incident of molestation while proceeding to Palode, as spoken to by PW3 to PW5, which PW5 referred to in chief examination, does not find a place in her former statement. However, as regards the incident that the accused molested PW3 while coming back from Mithranikethan School, PW5 would reiterate that the same was spoken to by her in her former statement. PW5 denied having given any dress material to PW3. It was suggested that PW5 supplied dress of a student, who passed away, to PW3, which her parents did not relish and that PW5 was inimical to the accused on that account. This suggestion is denied by PW5. 25. Having scanned the evidence tendered by PW5, we are of the opinion that the same corroborates the version of PW3 to a reasonably good extent. The factum of molestation was disclosed by PW3 to PW5 and this aspect is proved by the evidence tendered by PW5. 26. The next evidence to be discussed is that of PW7, the District Promoter attached to the Tribal Extension Office, Aryanad Grama Panchayat. He deposed that the Government High School, Aryanad is a school functioning in his area of operation and that PW5 contacted him one day and informed that PW3, a tribal girl, was subjected to sexual harassment by her stepfather. Having interacted with the child, PW7 found the allegations are genuine. Pw7 specifically deposed that PW3 told him about the accused lying near her during night and about molesting her after taking to the forest like area to collect reeds. A perusal of cross examination would indicate that nothing serious is seen elicited from PW7, so as to discredit his version spoken of in chief examination. 27. We, therefore, conclude the factual premise that the evidence tendered by PW3, the prosecutrix/victim, inspires full confidence in our minds as regards the prosecution allegations. She deposed graphically regarding the sexual overt acts made by the accused to her, which version of PW3 had successfully withstood the cross examination. Barring an omission that the accused used to lick her vagina, nothing is seen elicited in the cross examination. More over, the version of PW3 has been substantially corroborated by the medical evidence adduced in this case. Barring an omission that the accused used to lick her vagina, nothing is seen elicited in the cross examination. More over, the version of PW3 has been substantially corroborated by the medical evidence adduced in this case. PW2 who examined PW3/victim and who issued Ext.P2 medical certificate, deposed that the hymen was torn, with vagina admitting two fingers. PW2 had recorded in Ext.P2 certificate, apart from deposing before the court that there is evidence of past vaginal penetration. She also deposed that tearing of hymen is a positive indication of past vaginal penetration. Besides, the version of the victim/PW3 is supported by the evidence tendered by PW5 and PW7, insofar as it does. 28. We will also refer to a few binding precedents as regards the nature and extent of proof required while dealing with an offence under Section 376 of the Penal Code. 29. In Krishan Lal v. State of Haryana [ AIR 1980 SC 1252 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that to seek substantial corroboration of the victim’s evidence is to sacrifice common sense. The Supreme Court posed the question as to why a girl, of all persons in the world, hunt a stranger and foist a rape charge on him? The inherent bashfulness, the innocent naivete and the feminine tendency to conceal the outrage of masculine sexual aggression are factors which are relevant to improbabilise the hypothesis of false implication. 30. In Rafiq v. State of U.P. [ AIR 1981 SC 559 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus : “6. ….......... When rapists are reveling in their promiscuous pursuits and half of humankind-womankind-is protesting against its hapless lot, when no woman of honour will accuse another of rape since she sacrifices thereby what is dearest to her, we cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist on corroborative testimony, even it taken as a whole, the case spoken to by the victim strikes a judicial mind as probable. ……………… 7. Hardly a sensitized judge who sees the conspectus of circumstances in its totality and rejects the testimony of a rape victim unless there are very strong circumstances militating against its veracity.” 31. In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat [ AIR 1983 SC 753 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court enlisted as many as 10 factors to repel the possibility of false allegations of rape and held thus: “11. In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat [ AIR 1983 SC 753 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court enlisted as many as 10 factors to repel the possibility of false allegations of rape and held thus: “11. In view of these factors the victims and their relatives are not too keen to bring the culprit to books. And when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light there is a built-in assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. On principle the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on par with evidence of an injured witness. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury (which is not shown or believed to be self inflicted) is the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of a sex-offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. And while corroboration in the form of eye-witness account of an independent witness may often be forthcoming in physical assault cases, such evidence cannot be expected in sex offences, having regard to the very nature of the offence. ……………………………” 32. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Others [ (1996) 2 SCC 384 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases involving sexual molestation, even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are of a fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The Court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. It was further held that 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. 33. To the same effect is the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asha Ram [supra], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: “5. 33. To the same effect is the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asha Ram [supra], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: “5. …...It is now well settled principle of law that conviction can be founded on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The evidence of a prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness.……………………………… Even minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.” 34. In the light of the above discussion, we cannot but find the accused guilty of the offence under Section 375 of the IPC. In view of our findings as regards the proof of the age of the victim, the conviction under Section 375, ‘Sixthly’ cannot be sustained. However, that is inconsequential for the accused, since we find that the accused is guilty of the offence under Section 375, ‘Secondly’. Although, it was contended that absence of consent is not established by the prosecution, we find no merit in the submission. The evidence tendered by PW3, the victim, would leave no doubt regarding this aspect. The fact that the victim disclosed the matter to her class teacher, repeated the same before the S.T. Promoter and reiterated to the Investigating Officer will surely demonstrate lack of consent on her part. These aspects were convincingly spoken to by the respective witnesses as well. Apart from and independent of the fact that the evidence on record would belie the said contention of the accused/appellant, it is too much for a court of law to believe, in the absence of clinching evidence, that a school going girl would consent for sexual intercourse with none other than her step father. We find no reason as to why the victim, of all persons under the sun, point an accusing finger at her step father, if the sexual act was consensual. We therefore repel the defence contention regarding consent. 35. What remains is an appropriate sentence. The learned Sessions Judge, after discussing the impact of the crime on the mind of the victim, imposed a sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2 lakhs, with a default clause for imprisonment for two more years. We therefore repel the defence contention regarding consent. 35. What remains is an appropriate sentence. The learned Sessions Judge, after discussing the impact of the crime on the mind of the victim, imposed a sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2 lakhs, with a default clause for imprisonment for two more years. As per law prevailing at the time of commission of offence, the punishment prescribed was rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than 7 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life and also for fine. It could thus be seen that the learned Sessions Judge has imposed the maximum punishment prescribed by the statute. In State of M.P. v. Babulal [ (2008) 1 SCC 234 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relying upon Dinesh v. State of Rajasthan [ (2006) 3 SCC 771 ], held that once a person is convicted for offence of rape, he should be treated with heavy hands and undeserved indulgence or liberal attitude in not awarding adequate sentence would encourage potential criminals. In the instant case, the accused is the stepfather of the victim, a deemed father in all respects, who is legally - even morally - bound to protect his daughter, but we find that the protectee had perished in the jaws of the protector himself. We find no mitigating circumstance to interfere with the punishment imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. Resultantly, we confirm the judgment of conviction and the Order of sentence impugned. This appeal fails and the same is dismissed.