JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.02.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaon, in Sessions (T2) Case No. 230(N)/2007. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 09.02.2021, the learned Court below has convicted the accused/appellant under Sections 417/376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer RI for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-with default stipulation under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and also sentenced him to suffer RI for 1 (one) year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-with default stipulation under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code and further directed that sentence on both the count will run concurrently. 3. The factual background, leading to filing of the present appeal, is briefly stated as under:- “On 12.10.2006, the informant-Smti X (name withheld) lodged one F.I.R. with the In-Charge Sutirpar Police Post to the effect that making false allurement and promising to marry her, accused-Abul Nasar committed rape upon her 4/5 months back and impregnated her and she has been carrying pregnancy for 4 months. She then appraised the matter to the accused and asked him to marry her, but he abused her in various ways and told that he would not marry her. She then reported the matter to her family members and the elders of the village, who have questioned the accused, whereupon the accused admitted the matter. The said F.I.R., having been forwarded to the Officer-In-Charge, Juria Police Station, he registered a case, being Juria P.S. Case No. 141/06, under Sections 417/376 IPC and endorsed SI Nipul Kalita to investigate the same. The I.O. then visited the place of occurrence, prepared sketch map, and examined the witnesses and arrested the accused and forwarded him to the Court. He also got the victim examined by the Doctor and collected the report. Then on completion of investigation, he laid Charge-Sheet against the accused under Sections 417/376 of the Indian Penal Code. The I.O. then visited the place of occurrence, prepared sketch map, and examined the witnesses and arrested the accused and forwarded him to the Court. He also got the victim examined by the Doctor and collected the report. Then on completion of investigation, he laid Charge-Sheet against the accused under Sections 417/376 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused, accordingly, entered appearance before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaon, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing both the parties, framed charge against the accused under Sections 417/376 IPC and on being read and explained over, the accused pleaded not guilty to the same. Thereafter, the learned Court below has examined as many as 9 (nine) witnesses including the M.O. and the I.O. and after closing the prosecution evidence, the learned Court below has examined the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, hearing arguments of both side, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant, as aforesaid.” 4. Being highly aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal on the following grounds; and contended to set aside the impugned judgment and order by allowing this appeal. Being highly aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal on the following grounds; and contended to set aside the impugned judgment and order by allowing this appeal. (i) That, the learned Court below has committed grave error of law as well as of fact in convicting the accused under Section 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) That, the learned Court below failed to make assessment of the evidence on record in its proper perspective and the impugned judgment and order is based on mere conjecture and surmise; (iii) That, there is contradiction in the version of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned Court below has failed to take into account the same; (iv) That, the learned Court below has failed to analyse the fact that the victim failed to report the matter till carrying 5 (five) months of pregnancy; (v) That, the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the fact that there is no evidence that the accused committed sexual intercourse making false promise to marry her and that he had no intention to marry her at that time; (vi) That, there is substantial delay of 5 months in lodging the F.I.R. and the same has not been properly explained; (vii) That, the learned Court below has failed to appreciate that the age of the victim was above 18 years and she was major and she was a consenting party to the act; (viii) That, the learned Court below has failed to consider the fact that there was a Bichar, but no members of the said Bichar were examined by the prosecution side; and 5. Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the accused allegedly committed the offence by promising to marry the informant and that she was a consenting party to the said act and as she was major and her consent was valid as per Section 90 IPC. Further, Mr. Ahmed, pointed out that the accused has no intention to cheat the informant and that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R., and the same has not been properly explained and the evidence of the informant is not at all reliable and therefore, Mr. Ahmed contended to allow this appeal. Mr. Further, Mr. Ahmed, pointed out that the accused has no intention to cheat the informant and that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R., and the same has not been properly explained and the evidence of the informant is not at all reliable and therefore, Mr. Ahmed contended to allow this appeal. Mr. Ahmed also referred one case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narender Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2012) 7 SCC 171 , and also a judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Raktim Saikia & Ors. Vs. The State of Assam & Ors., reported in MANU/GH/0733/2021, to bolster his submissions. 6. On the other hand, Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the evidence of the Doctor (PW-8) reveals that at the relevant time, the victim was 15 (fifteen) years old and as such, she was a minor and though she has consented to the sexual activities under the allurement being given by the accused to marry her, yet, such a consent is not a valid consent. Mr. Das further submits that though some minor contradictions are there in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. with her evidence before the Court, yet the same are insignificant and there is no ground to disbelieve her version on that count. Mr. Das further submits that the accused was in visiting term with the victim and in view of the attending facts and circumstances on the record, it cannot be said that the finding, so recorded by the learned Court below, suffers from any infirmity or illegality requiring interference of this Court. Mr. Das, therefore, contended to dismiss the appeal. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the memo of appeal and the grounds mentioned therein and also carefully gone through the record of the learned Court below and the impugned judgment and order. 8. It appears that the F.I.R. was lodged on 12.10.2006, and allegedly, the occurrence took place over 4/5 months back. Thus, apparently, there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. But, an explanation is being offered in the F.I.R. itself, that she awaited for settlement of the matter through the elders of the village and as such, lodging of the F.I.R. got delayed. Thus, apparently, there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. But, an explanation is being offered in the F.I.R. itself, that she awaited for settlement of the matter through the elders of the village and as such, lodging of the F.I.R. got delayed. The explanation so forthcoming for the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is not disputed by the defence side. The explanation appears to be consistent with the facts and circumstances on the record and as such, to the considered opinion of this Court, the delay in lodging the same spells no inveracity to the prosecution version. It is to be noted here that in the case of The State Of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh & Ors., reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in sexual offence, delay in lodging the F.I.R. is not material. 9. The prosecution side has examined the informant/victim girl as P.W.-1. Her evidence reveals that the accused has one grocery shop near her house and he used to visit her house frequently and he asked her to have relationship with him and later on, both of them had developed love affairs and the accused promised to marry her and after five months of love affairs she became pregnant of 5 months. She then reported the matter to the accused and then he assured her that he would marry her and asked her not to report the matter to anybody else. But, later on, he refused to marry her. Then, she reported the matter to her parents, who took her to Doctor for medical examination and then the Doctor informed that she has been carrying pregnancy of 5 months. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the villagers and a meeting was convened and the accused denied the allegation made by her. Then, she lodged the F.I.R. (Exhibit-1) and police got her statement (Exhibit-2) recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also took her to hospital for medical examination and after few months, she has given birth to a baby girl. 10. The accused cross-examined her at length, but nothing tangible could be elicited to discredit her version. Rather, it is elicited that he had committed sexual intercourse with her with a promise to marry her, on four occasions. The evidence of the victim also reveals that her age was 15 years at the relevant time. 10. The accused cross-examined her at length, but nothing tangible could be elicited to discredit her version. Rather, it is elicited that he had committed sexual intercourse with her with a promise to marry her, on four occasions. The evidence of the victim also reveals that her age was 15 years at the relevant time. No material contradiction is brought on record and proved by the defence side through the I.O. Thus, it appears from the evidence of the victim that at the relevant point of time, she was 15 years old and that the accused, promising to marry her, committed sexual intercourse with her and as a result of which, she became pregnant and gave birth to a baby girl, which further fortified her version. The medical evidence also lends support to her version. 11. The prosecution side has examined the Medical Officer, Dr. A. K. Baruah, as P.W.-8, and his evidence reveals that he examined the victim on 16.10.2006, and found the following: (i) The girl is carrying 24 weeks pregnancy (ii) Clinically she is about 15 years old, X-Ray was not advised as because she was carrying pregnancy (iii) No injury mark is found in her body The medical report, Exhibit-4, is also consistent with his version. The defence side has cross-examined him, but nothing tangible could be elicited in the same. Thus, the medical evidence also supported the version of the victim that she was 15 years old at the relevant point of time. 12. The evidence of P.W.-2, Md. Mofijuddin, also reveals that the accused has a shop near the house of the informant and he used to visit her house for collecting water from the tube well and after few days, he heard that the informant becomes pregnant and on being asked, the informant stated that she is impregnated by the accused. His evidence remains un-rebutted in cross-examination and he denied that there was enmity between his son and the accused and therefore he implicated him falsely. Thus, this witness has, to some extent supported the evidence of the victim. 13. P.W.-3, Mustt. Firoza Khatun, is the grandmother of the victim and mother-in-law of P.W.-4. Her evidence reveals that about 1 ½ years back, the accused informed her that he would marry the informant and informant becomes 5 month pregnant. Thus, this witness has, to some extent supported the evidence of the victim. 13. P.W.-3, Mustt. Firoza Khatun, is the grandmother of the victim and mother-in-law of P.W.-4. Her evidence reveals that about 1 ½ years back, the accused informed her that he would marry the informant and informant becomes 5 month pregnant. She came to know about the same and then she visited the house of the accused and later on, she called the accused to her house and inquired from him and then the accused refused to marry the informant. It is elicit in her cross-examination that the victim has informed her that she was carrying pregnancy of 3 months and later on, she was 5 months pregnant. 14. P.W.-4, Musstt Hazera Khatun, is the mother of the victim. She came to know from her mother-in-law that her daughter is 5 months pregnant through the accused and then took the daughter to the Doctor and it was informed that her daughter is 5 months pregnant and her daughter informed her that she became pregnant on behalf of the accused. Thus, the evidence of this witness is admissible as res-gestae,as because she was told about the occurrence by her daughter. Nothing tangible could be elicited in her cross-examination. 15. The evidence of P.W.-5, Md. Zakir Hussain, and P.W. 6 Md. Ziabur Rahman would not render much assistance to the prosecution version. P.W.5 had, however seen the accused visiting the house of the victim and he heard that the accused has done some bad thing with the informant and a meeting of the villagers was also called in that respect and the accused did not accept the decision of the meeting. P.W.-6, never heard about the incident. But, he has seen the accused collecting water from the house of the informant and he has one mill near the shop of the accused. 16. P.W.-7 is S.I. Bhubneswar Talikdar, who had collected the medical report of the victim only and thereafter, submitted Charge-Sheet (Exhibit-3) and P.W.-9 is the I.O., who has done the major part of the investigation. 17. Thus, it appears that there is no direct evidence except the evidence of the victim. The evidences of other prosecution witnesses are hearsay. But, it is evident from the deposition of P.W.2, 5 and 6 that he used to visit her house for collecting water from the tube well. 17. Thus, it appears that there is no direct evidence except the evidence of the victim. The evidences of other prosecution witnesses are hearsay. But, it is evident from the deposition of P.W.2, 5 and 6 that he used to visit her house for collecting water from the tube well. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W. 3 that the accused stated to her that he would marry the victim. 18. Now, it is to be seen how far the evidence of the P.W.-1/victim is reliable. It has already discussed hereinabove that some contradictions are there in the version of the P.W.-1 before the court with that of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and under Section 161 Cr.P.C. But, the defence side has failed to prove the said contradictions through the I.O. It also appears that at the relevant time, age of the victim was 15 years. The victim, in her evidence before the Court, categorically stated that she was 15 years old. The medical evidence also reveals that she was 15 years old at the relevant time. In his evidence, Dr. A. K. Baruah categorically stated that clinically her age was 15 years. However, X-Ray could not be done as she was carrying pregnancy. The evidence of the victim as well as of the Doctor could not be rebutted by the defence side in cross-examination. 19. Further, it appears from the evidence of the victim that the accused committed sexual intercourse with her and she agreed to the said act when the accused promised to marry her and while she became 5 months pregnant, she then reported the matter to the accused and then also, the accused promised to marry her. But, later on, he refused to marry her. Thus, it appears that the victim is a consenting party to the sexual act between her and the accused. But, as she was minor at the relevant point of time, her consent, here in this case, is immaterial. Such consent is no consent in the eye of law. Mr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has rightly pointed this out during his argument and the submission of learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not controverted by the learned counsel for the appellant. 20. Such consent is no consent in the eye of law. Mr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has rightly pointed this out during his argument and the submission of learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not controverted by the learned counsel for the appellant. 20. Section 375 IPC defines rape as follows:- Rape:-A man is said to commit "rape," who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions: First:- Against her will Secondly:- Without her consent. Thirdly:-With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt. Fourthly:-With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. Fifthly:-With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent. Sixthly:-With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. Explanation.--Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. Exception.--Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape. 21. Clause Sixthly--`with or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age' assumes importance where a victim girl is less than sixteen years of age. But, no school certificate could be made available by the prosecution side. However, she has consistently stated that her age is 15 years. She has clearly stated that making false allurement and promise the accused committed rape upon her and impregnated her. And as such clause sixthly of section 375 IPC is clearly attracted herein this case. 22. Thus, having carefully analysed the evidence of the victim, I find no ground to disbelieve the same absence of independent witnesses notwithstanding. Her evidence able to inspire confidence and there is no compelling reason to disbelieve the same. And as such clause sixthly of section 375 IPC is clearly attracted herein this case. 22. Thus, having carefully analysed the evidence of the victim, I find no ground to disbelieve the same absence of independent witnesses notwithstanding. Her evidence able to inspire confidence and there is no compelling reason to disbelieve the same. In holding so, I derived authority from a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharasthra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain : (1990) 1 SCC 550 , where it has been held that : “A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case discloses that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.” 23. I have also considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and in view of the facts and circumstances discussed herein above; I am unable to record concurrence with the same. I have carefully gone through the case laws referred by Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant, and I find that the ratio laid down in the said cases, Narender Kumar (supra) is not applicable in all force to the facts herein this case. And the decision of this court in Raktim Saikia (supra), would not come into his aid, as no question of law is decided there and as such it cannot be read as precedent. In holding so, I derived authority from a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Surinder Kumar and Ors, reported in AIR 1902 SC 1593. 24. It also appears that the learned court below, having convicted the accused/appellant under Sections 376/417 IPC, sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-with default stipulation, under Section 376 IPC and also sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 1 (one) year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-with default stipulation, under Section 417 IPC and further directed that sentence on both the count will run concurrently. It has already been discussed and held that the accused/appellant had, promising to marry the victim, committed rape upon her and impregnated her and consequently she had given birth to a baby girl. Given the trauma she had to face, and the mental agony she had to suffer, and will also suffer throughout her life, and also having regards to the nature and gravity of the offences, it cannot be said that the sentence so handed down is unjustified or exorbitant. Given the trauma she had to face, and the mental agony she had to suffer, and will also suffer throughout her life, and also having regards to the nature and gravity of the offences, it cannot be said that the sentence so handed down is unjustified or exorbitant. And as such the same requires no interference of this court. 25. In the result, I find this appeal devoid of merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. The LCR be returned to the learned Court below forthwith. The parties have to bear their own cost.