JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kawardha (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.163 of 2001 whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under :- Conviction Sentence Under Section 376 (1) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 1 year. Under Section 450 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 1 year. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that, prosecutrix (PW-5) was aged about 15 years and resident of village Singhanpuri. Prior to 15-16 days of 28.10.2001, prosecutrix and her younger brother, namely, Netram was present in their house. At about 11.00 AM, prosecutrix was making food, at that relevant time, appellant came to their house and talked with Netram. About half an hour appellant talked with Netram, thereafter, Netram went to his room for sleep. Appellant locked his door from outside and came to the kitchen where he pushed the prosecutrix and committed sexual intercourse with her, on account of which, prosecutrix got unconscious. Upon shouting of Netram, his grandmother (who died during the pendency of case before the trial Court) came and unlocked the door of room of Netram. Thereafter, appellant ran away from the spot. Mother and father of prosecutrix went to Gujarat for livelihood, they came to the village before five days of lodging of report to Police. Prosecutrix narrated the incident to Kotwar Babulal (PW-3), Sarpanch Balvant and her uncle Shatrughan (PW-9). On 28.10.2001, at about 12.00 noon, prosecutrix lodged a report against the appellant bearing Crime No.79 of 2001 vide Ex.P/6. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/4. Prosecutrix was sent for medical examination and report in this regard has been prepared as ‘positive’. Birth certificate of prosecutrix was also seized. Statements of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellant. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 6 documents, whereas in order to prove the defence, appellant has examined only one defence witness. Birth certificate of prosecutrix was also seized. Statements of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellant. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 6 documents, whereas in order to prove the defence, appellant has examined only one defence witness. The statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which, he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment dated 31.01.2023, learned Additional Sessions Judge, has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that trial Court has committed gross error in holding that on the date of incident, prosecutrix was minor. It is contended that trial Court has erred in holding that there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. It is further contended that prosecutrix was consenting party to the incident. It is argued that finding of the trial Court is based upon the surmises, for which, there is no specific evidence though there was a narration of prosecution story supplied by the Police in the charge-sheet and as such the evaluation, analysis and scrutiny of the evidence were not done properly by the trial Court with proper perspective, sentence imposed upon the appellant is excessive and harsh, therefore, appeal may be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 8. The prosecutrix was examined as PW-5. At the time of incident, her brother Netram (PW-8) was in another room of same house. It is clear from the statement of father Lalji (PW-6), uncle Shatruhan (PW-9) and aunt Parvati Bai (PW-7) of prosecutrix that mother and father of prosecutrix were not present in the house as they went to Gujarat for livelihood. It is clear from statements of all these family members as well as spot map (Ex.P/4) prepared by Ku. Manjulata Rathore ( PW-10) that there is a public road behind those rooms and there is houses of uncle Shatruhan (PW-9) and uncle Shivkumar (not examined) at some distance. It is clear from statements of all these family members as well as spot map (Ex.P/4) prepared by Ku. Manjulata Rathore ( PW-10) that there is a public road behind those rooms and there is houses of uncle Shatruhan (PW-9) and uncle Shivkumar (not examined) at some distance. Parvati Bai (PW-7), aunt of prosecutrix lived in same village. Another uncle of prosecutrix, Ramakrishna, also lived in same village, Singhanpuri. Except Shatruhan and Parvati Bai, rest of uncles had gone for livelihood at the time of incident and they came back to village after getting information about the incident. After arrival of father Lalji (PW-6), prosecutrix lodged a report of incident on 28.10.2001, on the basis of which, Ku. Manjulata Rathore (PW-10) has registered the First Information Report. Thereafter, investigation was started. The reason for delay in lodging the First Information Report was that report was written after arrival of father of prosecutrix. 9. The prosecutrix (PW-5) has stated in her Court statement that at around 11.00-12.00 O'clock, when she was cooking food in the room of her house, appellant came and started talking to her brother Netram. When Netram slept in another room, appellant locked the chain of his room from outside. Thereafter, he came to the room of prosecutrix, picked her from behind, threw her on ground and took off her and his own underwear and committed sexual intercourse with her. When she shouted in defence, a cloth was stuffed in her mouth. Her left hand was polio affected. After hearing the noise, her old grandmother Revabai (who died) came and opened the door of Netram's room. Grandmother Revabai saw the appellant running away from the spot. Thereafter, prosecutrix (PW-9) was narrated the incident to Kotwar Babulal (PW-3) Balwant and her uncle Shatruhan. Shatruhan was ready to go to lodge report, but Kotwar and Sarpanch stated that parents of prosecutrix were not in village and after their arrival, report would be lodged. After getting information, her uncle Shivkumar called and talked to his father Lalji. Then, her father came to village, who was unwell for a few days, after which, report was lodged. The police prepared a spot map according to her instructions. Her underwear was torn at the time of incident and the same was not seized because police did not ask for it. Then, her father came to village, who was unwell for a few days, after which, report was lodged. The police prepared a spot map according to her instructions. Her underwear was torn at the time of incident and the same was not seized because police did not ask for it. Thus, prosecutrix has stated that she was forcibly raped by appellant after entering her room. Her statement is corroborated by First Information Report (Ex.P/6) registered after about 15 to 16 days of the alleged incident. 10. According to case of the prosecution, date of birth of prosecutrix was narrated as 04.07.1984. The police has seized Kotwari Panji of her maternal grandfather's time from Kotwar Babulal (PW-3) vide Ex.P/3. According to Article-A, name of prosecutrix was earlier Tomin Bai and her father Lalji had registered the date of birth as 04.07.1984 in the said Kotwari register. According to Kotwar Babulal, said entry was made by him. He also stated that earlier name of prosecutrix was Tomin Bai, which has now been changed. In such situation, there is no reason to disbelieve the entry made in Kotwari register, according to which, date of birth of prosecutrix was 04.07.1984. The report of incident dated 13.10.2001 has been stated to be about 15 days before 28.10.2001. Calculating the date of birth from the said date, age of prosecutrix is reflected as 17 years 03 months on the date of incident. 11. Before the amendment in the year, 2013, the question of consent of prosecutrix for the crime of rape under Section 375 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) did not arise when she had not attained the age of 16 years. In the present case, age of prosecutrix had completed 16 years at the time of incident. Therefore, the Court has to consider whether appellant had forcibly raped the prosecutrix without her consent? 12. Corroborating the statement of prosecutrix, her brother Netram (PW-8) has stated that he was feeling sleepy at night due to watching the movie in video. He was sitting in a separate room. The appellant was coming and talked with him. He slept and after hearing the noise of his sister, he woke up and found that door of his room was locked from outside. Thereafter, he shouted 5-6 times to his grandmother Revabai, who came and opened the door. He was sitting in a separate room. The appellant was coming and talked with him. He slept and after hearing the noise of his sister, he woke up and found that door of his room was locked from outside. Thereafter, he shouted 5-6 times to his grandmother Revabai, who came and opened the door. His grandmother saw that appellant was ran away. The prosecutrix was lying in her room with no clothes on her body. Then, grandmother covered her body with a cloth, sprinkled water and dressed her. The appellant had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, who has paralysed in one hand since childhood. Thereafter, he told the incident to Kotwar and Sarpanch and they stated that they will lodge report only when their parents come. 13. There were two important witnesses of the incident. Due to death of grandmother Revabai during trial, she could not be examined before the Court. Amongst other examined witnesses, i.e., father Lalji (PW-6), aunt Parvati Bai (PW-7) and uncle Shatruhan (PW-9) corroborated the statements of prosecutrix and Netram. According to their evidence, it is clear that prosecutrix’s father Lalji has 4-5 brothers and one sister Parvati Bai. Except Shatruhan and Parvati Bai, rest of them were gone for livelihood. When prosecutrix’s father Lalji (PW-6) came back after getting information about the incident, report was lodged. Thus, there was delay of 15-16 days in lodging the First Information Report. 14. Medical examination of the appellant was done by Dr. K. K. Sharma (PW-4), who gave its report vide Ex.P/5 stating that appellant is capable of sexual intercourse. In cross-examination, he stated that no injury was found on his genital or body. Since medical examination was taken place about 15 days after the incident, absence of injury on the body of appellant does not lead to presumption of his acquittal. In the report (Ex.P/5), he has been found fit for sexual intercourse. 15. On 29.10.2001, Dr. Neeta Karnavat (PW-2) has given report its vide Ex.P/2 after medical examination of prosecutrix, according to which, she found that left hand of prosecutrix was weak. It was difficult to lift her against gravity. There was no external injury on her body or genitals. There was little blood present around the genital area, which could be due to menstruation. Her hymen was torn. Two fingers used to go easily in her vagina. It was difficult to lift her against gravity. There was no external injury on her body or genitals. There was little blood present around the genital area, which could be due to menstruation. Her hymen was torn. Two fingers used to go easily in her vagina. According to her, rape was committed on prosecutrix because she was not used to sexual intercourse. Thus, statement of prosecutrix is corroborated by medical report (Ex.P/2). 16. The defence taken by the appellant was that prosecutrix, who was suffering from polio in one hand was not having any relationship and she has been falsely implicated in order to pressurize her to have a relationship with appellant. The above suggestion of appellant was denied by prosecutrix and her father. Apart from above, there does not appear to be any other main ground of defence of appellant. 17. During the cross-examination of prosecutrix (PW-5) and her brother Netram (PW-8), some suggestions were made by defence itself, which corroborated the case of prosecution. On the suggestion of defence, prosecutrix has stated that when her brother Netram shouted, her grandmother Revabai came and untied the chain and on the screams of prosecutrix herself, her brother Netram, who heard the noise, woke up from sleep and her grandmother Revabai came immediately when appellant was going out of door. At the time of incident, grandmother Revabai was in neighborhood i.e., house of her uncle Shivkumar, which is nearby located. Thus, prosecution has proved the course of events on being suggested by defence. 18. Similarly, in cross-examination, suggestions were given to brother of prosecutrix Netram (PW-8), who was present in the same house at the time of the incident. Netram has stated that his grandmother Revabai used to stay at his uncle Shivkumar's house, who immediately came when he called her. He has further stated that as soon as he was lying down, he heard screams of prosecutrix, then, he called out to her grandmother, on which, her grandmother Revabai came and opened the locked chain of door of his room. 19. It has been argued by defence that there are many contradictions and variations in statements of prosecution witnesses and prosecutrix, as such, their evidence is cannot be termed as credible. The First Information Report has been lodged with inordinate delay, as such, appellant deserves to be acquitted. 19. It has been argued by defence that there are many contradictions and variations in statements of prosecution witnesses and prosecutrix, as such, their evidence is cannot be termed as credible. The First Information Report has been lodged with inordinate delay, as such, appellant deserves to be acquitted. In support of his case, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana reported in (2011) 7 SCC 130 , in which, it has been determined by Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the sole statement of prosecutrix is reliable, then it can be believed. But if it has shortcomings then conviction cannot be based on it. 20. In the case at hand, statement of prosecutrix (PW-5) has been corroborated by her minor younger brother Netram (PW-8). She has clearly narrated the incident step by step as to how appellant came to her house and kept talking to Netram. When Netram fell asleep, he locked the door of his room from outside. Thereafter, he came in another room, where she cooked food. He caught hold of her behind with one hand and slamming her and then, he committed sexual intercourse with polio-afflicted prosecutrix. Netram woke up after noise of prosecutrix and when Netram shouted, their grandmother Revabai, who was living in neighborhood, came and opened the door, who saw the appellant running away. The statement of prosecutrix is corroborated by First Information Report (Ex.P/6). Thus, there is no infirmity in the statement of prosecutrix, moreover, her statement has been corroborated by Netram, who was present in another room. 21. Insofar delay of 15-16 days in lodging the First Information Report is concerned, it is clear not only from the statement of prosecutrix (PW-5) but also her brother Netram (PW-8), father Lalji (PW-6), uncle Shatruhan (PW-9), aunt Parvati Bai (PW-7) and Village Kotwar Babulal (PW-6) that parents the prosecutrix had gone to Gujarat for livelihood, as such, report was not lodged at that relevant time and when her parents came back to village, prosecutrix lodged the report along with them. Thus, they are given satisfactory explanation in lodging the report with inordinate delay. 22. Thus, they are given satisfactory explanation in lodging the report with inordinate delay. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Puran Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2014) 5 SCC 689 and Sohan Singh and Another v. State of Bihar reported in (2010) 1 SCC 68 held that if delay in lodging the commission of offence of rape is satisfactorily explained, such delay shall not be fatal to the case of prosecution. 23. In case of Sohan Singh (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- 13. When FIR by a Hindu lady is to be lodged with regard to commission of offence like rape, many questions would obviously crop up for consideration before one finally decides to lodge the FIR. It is difficult to appreciate the plight of the victim who has been criminally assaulted in such a manner. Obviously, the prosecutrix must have also gone through great turmoil and only after giving it a serious thought, must have decided to lodge the FIR. Precisely this appears to be the reason for little delayed FIR. As mentioned hereinabove, the delay has already been found to be properly explained by both the courts below. Thus, we are not required to deal with this issue any more. 24. In the case at hand, fact remains is that at the time of occurrence, prosecutrix and her minor brother were living in the house. While his uncle, aunt and grandmother etc. were lived in other house. Immediately after the incident, these relatives were informed. Along with them, Village Kotwar Babulal (PW-3) was also informed about the incident. On the advice of Kotwar and Sarpanch, report was not lodged immediately because parents of prosecutrix were not present in the village. Her father Lalji was informed by phone and when he returned to the village, prosecutrix went along with him and lodged a report to the police. As such, reason for delay in lodging the report has been satisfactorily explained by prosecution. Hence, such delay cannot be considered fatal for prosecution. 25. Insofar as prosecutrix being the only completely reliable witness is concerned, in cross-examination of prosecutrix (PW-5) and Netram (PW-8), no such fact has come to disbelieve or contradict the events, in which, such incident has been narrated. In such a situation, defence does not get the benefit of concept expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar Malik (supra). 25. Insofar as prosecutrix being the only completely reliable witness is concerned, in cross-examination of prosecutrix (PW-5) and Netram (PW-8), no such fact has come to disbelieve or contradict the events, in which, such incident has been narrated. In such a situation, defence does not get the benefit of concept expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar Malik (supra). The statement of prosecutrix has been unrebutted, which is found to be reliable beyond doubt and the same is corroborated by First Information Report (Ex.P/6) and evidence of minor brother Netram (PW-8). 26. The incident of rape is punishable with imprisonment for life, which is committed by trespassing in the house. Thus, conviction of appellant under Sections 376(1) and 450 of IPC is based on clear and reliable evidence, which does not call for any interference. 27. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under both the offences. The incident is of the year 2001. Before amendment in IPC in the year 2013, minimum sentence for the offence of Section 376 of IPC was imprisonment for 7 years. 22 years have been passed since the incident, in such a situation, it would be appropriate to exercise some leniency on the question of punishment. 28. In view of above, sentence imposed upon the appellant Suresh Koushik for the offence punishable under Sections 376(1) and 450 of IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under both the offences. The period spent by the appellant in custody shall be adjusted against his sentenced period. The fine amount of Rs.5,000/- - Rs.5,000/- is maintained. If the amount of fine was deposited, the same shall be adjusted. 29. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under aforementioned sections, he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. The bail bonds of the appellant is cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the concerned trial Court immediately to suffer remaining part of sentence. 30. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.