JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The appellant/convict has filed the instant appeal against the judgment dated 29.8.2019 and order dated 31.8.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby he has not only been convicted for offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “POCSO Act”) but also under Section 376-AB of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months under Section 376-AB IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.09.2018 at around 2:00 p.m., the victim, aged about 10 years, a student of 6th Class, was playing in the Varandah of her house while her mother (complainant) PW1 Kamlesh Kumari was watching TV when appellant came there and asked about the shop (Patanjali), where Ram Dev's products were sold. The appellant took the victim with him and did not return for about 45 minutes. Thereafter, complainant went to Ram Dev's shop in the village, but, the victim was not found there. The complainant returned and reached near Jagro Tailor's shop, where she came to know that appellant had taken the victim towards Kangu ‘nalla’. Thereafter, she alongwith PW4 Nirmala Devi alias Rumila Devi went towards Kangu ‘nalla’ in search of the victim and there, they met Ranjha and his wife Saroj, who were accompanying the victim near the fields. They told that the appellant took the victim to ‘nalla’ and she was crying. They both went to the place, and on seeing them the appellant fled away. Ranjha and his wife Saroj also told that thereafter, Saroj put on the ‘Pajami’ of the victim. Saroj also told that the appellant was doing the wrong act with the victim. After reaching home, the complainant asked the victim about wrong act committed with her by the appellant. She also physically examined the victim by opening her Pajami and found her private part to be swollen. Thereafter, the complainant went to the house of appellant and then the appellant telephoned Panchayat Pradhan Parkash Chand and the complainant talked to Pradhan Parkash Chand from the telephone of the appellant. She also physically examined the victim by opening her Pajami and found her private part to be swollen. Thereafter, the complainant went to the house of appellant and then the appellant telephoned Panchayat Pradhan Parkash Chand and the complainant talked to Pradhan Parkash Chand from the telephone of the appellant. The complainant claimed that thereafter she alongwith victim went to the house of Pradhan Parkash Chand, who also called Panch Sunita Devi to his house. Pradhan informed Police Station and thereafter, the complainant alongwith victim visited Police Station Shahpur at about 5:00 p.m. The matter was reported to the police and case FIR was registered. The medical examination of the victim was got conducted at Civil Hospital, Shahpur. During investigation, the police visited the spot of occurrence on the identification given by the victim and during investigation, the police seized the clothes of prosecutrix i.e. ‘Kameez’ and ‘Pajami’, ‘and sealed in a cloth parcel. The birth certificate of the prosecutrix was also procured from Secretary Gram Panchayat Basnoor. The photographs of the spot were taken by the Investigating Officer. During further investigation, the statement of the victim under section 164 of Cr.P.C. was got recorded before the Magistrate and the appellant was arrested. 3. After the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the matter was committed to the court of sessions, where charges, as aforesaid, were framed against the appellant. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him. 5. The learned trial court, after evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid and hence, the instant appeal. 6. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the findings recorded by the learned trial court are totally perverse as the trial court has been swayed only by emotions and not by reasons in convicting and sentencing the appellant. 7. On the other hand, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, would argue that the findings recorded by the learned trial court are in tune with the oral as well as documentary evidence that has come on record and since the learned trial court has threadbare discussed all the evidence and thereafter has reached at a right conclusion, therefore, the findings, as recorded, warrant no interference. 8. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 9. At the outset, it needs to be observed that this Court is dealing with a “child”, who also happens to be the victim of the offence and therefore, we need to clearly delineate the principles governing the admissibility and reliability of the evidence of a “child witness”. The task of this Court has been made easy by the learned Division Bench of Meghalaya High Court in Marbet Nongsiej vs. State of Meghalaya, 2020 Cri.L.J.1223 wherein, after taking into consideration the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the following guiding principles governing the admissibility and reliability of the evidence of the child witness have been laid down. (i) There is no absolute principle, to the effect that the evidence of child witnesses cannot inspire confidence, or be relied upon. (ii) Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 discounts the competence, of persons of tender age, to testify, only where they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, on account of their age. (iii) If, therefore, the child witness is found competent to depose to the facts, and is reliable, his evidence can be relied upon and can constitute the basis of conviction. (iv) The Court has to ascertain, for this purpose, whether (a) the witness is able to understand the questions put to him and give rational answers thereto, (b) the demeanour of the witness is similar to that of any other competent witness, (c) the witness possesses sufficient intelligence and comprehension, to depose, (d) the witness was not tutored, (e) the witness is in a position to discern between the right and wrong, truth and untruth, and (f) the witness fully understands the implications of what he says, as well as the sanctity that would attach to the evidence being given by him. (v) The presumption is that every witness is competent to depose, unless the court considers that he is prevented from doing so, for one of the reasons set out under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1987. (v) The presumption is that every witness is competent to depose, unless the court considers that he is prevented from doing so, for one of the reasons set out under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1987. It is, therefore, desirable that judges and Magistrates should always record their positive opinion that the child understands the duty of speaking the truth, as, otherwise, the credibility of the witness would be seriously affected, and may become liable to rejection altogether. (vi) Inasmuch as the Trial Court would have the child before it, and would be in a position to accurately assess the competence of the child to depose, the subjective decision of the Trial Court, in this regard, deserves to be accorded due respect. The appellate court would interfere, therewith, only where the record indicates, unambiguously, that the child was not competent to depose as a witness, or that his deposition was tutored. Twin, and to an extent mutually conflicting, considerations, have to be borne in mind, while ascertaining the competency of a child witness to justify. On the one hand, the evidence of the child witness has to be assessed with caution and circumspection, given the fact that children, especially of tender years, are open to influence and could possibly be tutored. On the other hand, the evidence of a competent child witness commands credibility, as children, classically, are assumed to bear no ill-will and malice against anyone, and it is, therefore, much more likely that their evidence would be unbiased and uninfluenced by any extraneous considerations. (vii) It is always prudent to search for corroborative evidence, where conviction is sought to be based, to a greater or lesser extent, on the evidence of a child witness. The availability of any such corroborative evidence would lend additional credibility to the testimony of the witness." 10. Equally settled is the proposition that under the given facts and circumstances, conviction can be ordered on the sole testimony of the victim if found to be worthy of credence and reliable and under such circumstances, her statement requires no corroboration and the court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the victim. 11. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, the Court would venture to consider testimony of the child victim, who appeared as PW15 and stated that she was studying in 6th class in the year 2018. 11. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, the Court would venture to consider testimony of the child victim, who appeared as PW15 and stated that she was studying in 6th class in the year 2018. She deposed that the appellant asked her to show him Ram Dev's shop and gave her 'kurkure' and currency note of Rs.10/-, and thereafter she went with him. The appellant then took her to Kangu ‘nalla’ towards the fields and asked her to remove her ‘Pajami’. The appellant also put off his ‘suthnu’ (Pajama) and then touched her private part and did "shame-shame" (wrong act) with her. She further deposed that she was crying at that time as she was having pain in her private parts. She stated that then one aunty came there and appellant fled away from the spot. She further deposed that she was holding her ‘pajami’ in her hand and aunty helped to put on her ‘pajami’. She stated that one more aunty came there and thereafter, her mother, also came there and she narrated the incident to her mother. Her medical examination was got conducted by the police and she also signed the MLC. Her statement Ex. PW15/A was recorded in the court. 12. On being cross-examined, she denied that her father had done labour work for construction of house of the appellant. She admitted that there were many houses in the village. She however denied that she was making the statement only at the instance of her mother. She admitted that there was a path leading to Kangu ‘nalla’ and people also used that path and even go there to answer call of nature. However, she denied that the police had recorded her statement as per version given by her parents. She denied that the appellant was from her village and he had not come to her house or had not taken her to ‘nalla’. She further denied that the appellant had not done any wrong act with her. 13. It would be noticed that the statement of the victim is of sterling quality, where she has withstood test of cross-examination, however even if the Court is required to look into corroboration, then reference to the testimony of PW1 Kamlesh Kumari, PW2 Saroj Kumari, PW3 Sunita, PW4 Nirmala Devi, PW5 Mohan Lal and PW6 Sawroop Chand is necessary. 14. 13. It would be noticed that the statement of the victim is of sterling quality, where she has withstood test of cross-examination, however even if the Court is required to look into corroboration, then reference to the testimony of PW1 Kamlesh Kumari, PW2 Saroj Kumari, PW3 Sunita, PW4 Nirmala Devi, PW5 Mohan Lal and PW6 Sawroop Chand is necessary. 14. Firstly, we may refer to statement of mother of the victim, PW1 Kamlesh Kumari, who deposed that on 24.09.2018 around 2:00 p.m., whe she was watching TV and the victim was playing in the ‘varandah’, the appellant came and asked about the shop, where Ram Dev's products (Patanjali) were sold. Thereafter, appellant took the victim with him, but did not return for about 45 minutes. She then went to Ram Dev's shop in the village, but the victim was not found there. She started searching and reached near Jagro Tailor's shop where PW4 Nirmala met her and told that the appellant had taken the victim towards Kangu ‘nalla’. Thereafter, she alongwith PW4 went towards Kangu ‘nalla’, where they met PW6 Ranjha alias Swaroop and his wife PW2 Saroj, who were accompanying the victim near the fields. They told that the victim was taken to ‘nalla’ by the appellant and she was crying and when they went to the place, the appellant fled away from there. Ranjha and his wife Saroj also informed her that Saroj had also put on the ‘pajami’ of the victim and Saroj also informed that the appellant was doing wrong act with the victim. Thereafter on reaching home, she enquired from the victim, who told that the appellant had done wrong act with her. She also physically examined the victim and found her private part to be swelling. She then went to the house of the appellant and the appellant telephoned Panchayat Pradhan Parkash Chand. She also talked to Pradhan Parkash Chand from the telephone of the appellant. Thereafter, she went to the house of Pradhan Parkash Chand alongwith the victim. She further deposed that Pradhan had called Panch Sunita Devi to his house and Pradhan had also informed Police Station. Thereafter, she alongwith victim went to Police Station Shahpur around 5:00 p.m. and lodged FIR Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, medical examination of the victim was got done. Thereafter, she went to the house of Pradhan Parkash Chand alongwith the victim. She further deposed that Pradhan had called Panch Sunita Devi to his house and Pradhan had also informed Police Station. Thereafter, she alongwith victim went to Police Station Shahpur around 5:00 p.m. and lodged FIR Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, medical examination of the victim was got done. She stated that on the next day, the police visited village and inspected the spot, as identified by the victim, regarding which the spot identification memo Ex. PW1/B was prepared. She also stated that the police had seized clothes of victim i.e. shirt Ex. P2 (Kameez) and pajami Ex. P3, vide memo Ex.PW1/C. She stated that the specimen impression of seal was also separately taken on a cloth piece, vide Ex.PW1/D. She further stated that police had also taken the photographs at the spot and on the same day lady police had also recorded the statement of victim. She stated that on 27.09.2018 the statement of victim was recorded by the Magistrate at Dharamshala. 15. On being cross-examined, she stated that her husband was a labourer. She admitted that there were about 5-10 houses and only one shop in the village. She denied that her husband used to do labour work in the house of appellant. She also denied that her husband had worked for the construction of the house of appellant in the year 2017. She also denied that her husband had some money due from the appellant, which he had not paid, therefore, a false case was prepared against the appellant. 16. It would be noticed that statement of the mother of the victim is mainly based on hearsay except identification of the spot etc. therefore, in this background, it would be necessary to refer to testimony of eye-witness of the incident i.e. PW2 Saroj Devi and her husband PW6 Swaroop Chand. 17. PW2, Saroj Devi, stated that on 24.09.2018, she met the victim near Kangu Nalla, who was weeping and she caught hold of leg of her husband. The victim was holding her ‘pajami’ in her hands and the witness in turn helped her to put on her ‘pajami’. She stated that she had not seen the appellant there and after some time mother of the prosecutrix also reached there and they handed over the victim to her. The victim was holding her ‘pajami’ in her hands and the witness in turn helped her to put on her ‘pajami’. She stated that she had not seen the appellant there and after some time mother of the prosecutrix also reached there and they handed over the victim to her. She stated that on 25.09.2018, police had come to the village and the victim had taken the police to the ‘nalla’. She further stated that she had signed the spot identification memo Ex. PW1/B. She had seen the statement Ex.PW2/A, signed by her with red circle, which was recorded in the court at Dharamshala. However, she had not stated that they tried to catch hold of the person who fled away from the spot and ultimately, this witness was declared hostile. 18. On being cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, she deposed that she had informed the police during investigation that when she reached the spot, the victim was standing with her ‘pajami’ in her hands and her husband had enquired from the appellant as to what he did with victim, on which he fled away. 19. PW6 Swaroop Chand deposed that on 24.09.2018, he was returning to his village from Basnoor and when he reached near Kangu ‘nalla’, then one girl came there, caught hold of his legs and did not say anything. She was carrying her ‘pajami’ in her hands and his wife helped to put on her ‘pajami’. He stated that thereafter mother of said girl came there, whom he did not recognize and he had also not seen appellant at the spot on that day. He stated that his statement was also recorded by the Magistrate at Dharamshala and he was brought to the court by police from Rait, where he was working and his statement Ex.PW6/A, which was made by him, was out of his free will before the Magistrate. However, he had made detailed statement Ex.PW6/B regarding their meeting with the victim. He stated that he had not stated before the Magistrate that appellant was there. However, he had signed the statement at the end. 20. This witness was declared hostile and on being cross-examined by learned Public Prosecutor, he completely disowned his statement that was made by him before the Magistrate. He stated that he had not stated before the Magistrate that appellant was there. However, he had signed the statement at the end. 20. This witness was declared hostile and on being cross-examined by learned Public Prosecutor, he completely disowned his statement that was made by him before the Magistrate. However, he had told the police that Kamlesh Kumari and Nirmala Devi had come to the spot and her wife had told them about the incident and asked Kamlesh Kumari to report the matter to the police. 21. At this stage, it needs to be noticed that the learned trial court while recording cross-examination of the witness had recorded his demeanour, whereby he had been taking time to answer the questions. 22. PW3 Sunita deposed that she knew Kamlesh Kumar PW1, and her daughter, victim, as they were from her village. She stated that on 25.09.2018, police had come to the village and she remained associated in the investigation. She stated that she had gone to Kangu ‘nalla’ alongwith the victim, her mother, Pradhan Parkash Chand and Saroj Kumari. She further stated that the victim told them in the presence of police that on 24.09.2018, appellant had taken her to the fields near the ‘nalla’ and removed her ‘pajami’ and raped her. She stated that the police took photographs at the spot. It is also stated that thereafter police came to the house of complainant, where she produced the clothes of victim i.e. Kameez Ex.P2, Pajami Ex.P3, before the police, which were seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW1/C. She also stated that on 26.09.2018, police had come to the village and the appellant had taken the police party to fields near Kangu ‘nalla’ and identified the place of occurrence. She further stated that the police prepared memo of spot, Ex.PW3/A. 23. In her cross-examination, she admitted that the place where she was residing was inhabited by about 25-30 houses. She voluntarily stated the place from where the appellant had taken the victim there was no house and only there were around 1-2 shops in the village. She stated that the police had questioned her regarding the incident and she had told the police that the victim had told them that the appellant had taken her to the fields and raped her. 24. She stated that the police had questioned her regarding the incident and she had told the police that the victim had told them that the appellant had taken her to the fields and raped her. 24. PW4 Nirmala Devi deposed that on 24.09.2018 around 2-2:30 p.m., she was standing on the path near the shop of Jagarnath in the village and at that time, Kamlesh Kumari came there in search of the victim and also inquired from her. She then told that the victim had gone towards Kangu ‘nalla’ with the appellant. Upon hearing this, Kamlesh Kumari went towards Kangu ‘nalla’ and she also went towards that side to bring grass. She stated that near the ‘nalla’, they met one Swaroop, his wife and Mohan Lal. She stated that Swaroop and his wife told that the appellant had fled away from the spot and the victim was present at the spot. She thereafter left the spot for bringing grass. 25. This witness too was declared hostile and on being cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, she admitted that when they reached the spot, the victim was also there, who caught hold of the legs of Swaroop and was weeping. She admitted that Mohan Lal had stated at the spot the appellant had done wrong act with the victim and fled away. 26. PW5 Mohan Lal, stated that on 24.09.2018, he was cutting grass in his land near Kangu Nallah around 3:30-3:45 p.m. and at the time, he heard sound of people talking near the ‘nalla’, and then he saw them and went there. He stated that at the spot, his Bua Nirmala Devi, Kamlesh Kumari, victim, Swaroop and his wife Saroj were present and the victim was not wearing the ‘pajami’. He inquired at the spot and Swaroop Singh and his wife Saroj told that appellant had done wrong act with the victim and thereafter fled away. 27. In his cross-examination, he stated that there were around 7-8 houses in the village of victim and there was one shop nearby. He stated that on 25.09.2018 when police had come to the spot, he had told the police that at that time the victim was not wearing ‘pajami’. He stated that Kamlesh Kumari was not related to him. He denied that the appellant was from the same village and knew about the shops in their village. He stated that on 25.09.2018 when police had come to the spot, he had told the police that at that time the victim was not wearing ‘pajami’. He stated that Kamlesh Kumari was not related to him. He denied that the appellant was from the same village and knew about the shops in their village. He voluntarily stated that he was from the different village. He denied that when he had reached the spot, the appellant was not there. 28. Now, adverting to the medical evidence, PW8 Dr. Hari Raj, deposed that on 24.09.2018, the police had moved an application Ex.PW8/A for conducting medical examination of the appellant and he had issued MLC Ex. PW8/B. He stated that as per MLC, there was nothing to suggest that the appellant was unable to perform intercourse. 29. PW9 Dr. Shilpa, stated that on 24.09.2018 around 9:00 p.m., the victim was examined by her vide MLC Ex.PW9/B on an application Ex.PW9/A moved by the police. She stated that the patient was 11 years old and studying in 6th class according to her mother and child's statement. The appellant gave her ‘kurkure’ and took her outside the home and there were injuries on her private parts. On general physical examination: patient was in red and cream frock suit. She was conscious, cooperative, well oriented, well behaved and not complaining of any pain on the body parts and she had not worn any undergarments, no underwear was seen. The witness further stated that no sign of injury was seen on her breast. Fresh bleed was seen around vagina. Labia Majora erosion was seen. The mother of the victim had stated that she had changed the clothes of victim before bringing her to the hospital. She conducted perineal and local vaginal examination as under:- 1) Labia Majora separated with fingers. Fresh bleed seen near orifice. Redness is seen around the vaginal orifice. No hairs were seen around vagina. 2) Hyman was torn. Fresh bleed seen there. Redness seen around the hymen. Swab was taken sealed and handed over to the police. 3) No sign of injury was seen over the thigh. No sign of injury over the legs were seen. 4) Anal area was normal. No injury was seen over there. Perineal swab had taken and handed over to the police. 5) Patient's urine had been collected. 30. Swab was taken sealed and handed over to the police. 3) No sign of injury was seen over the thigh. No sign of injury over the legs were seen. 4) Anal area was normal. No injury was seen over there. Perineal swab had taken and handed over to the police. 5) Patient's urine had been collected. 30. During examination, samples of vaginal swab, perianal swab, blood, urine and nails of the victim were preserved, sealed and handed over to the police. She stated that the blood sample on FTA card were taken separately and sealed and handed over to the police for DNA analysis and as per her opinion, possibility of sexual act could not be ruled out. She further stated that on 19.01.2019, the police brought RFSL report Ex.PA, for tendering the final opinion on the MLC. She stated that she had perused the report of RFSL and as per report of RFSL:- 1. Blood was detected in traces in exhibit la (vaginal swab, prosecutrix), but the amount of blood was insufficient for serological examination. Semen was not detected in the exhibit. 2. Blood and semen were not detected in exhibit-1b (perineal swab, prosecutrix) exhibit-1c (nail clippings prosecutrix), exhibit i.e (urine sample, prosecutrix), exhibit 2a (shirt prosecutrix), exhibit 2b (salwar, prosecutrix), exhibit-3a (shirt/kurta accused Dharam Chand), exhibit 3b (vest, accused Dharam Chand), exhibit-3c(Pajama accused Dharam Chand) and exhibit 3d (underwear, accused Dharam Chand). 3. Human blood was detected in exhibit-1d (blood sample prosecutrix). As per my opinion, possibility of sexual act cannot be ruled out. She has issued opinion is Ex.PW9/B on the reverse of MLC. 31. On being cross-examined, the witness stated that the victim was brought by the police, accompanied by her mother and the alleged history of crime was narrated by the mother. She admitted that if someone presses the thumb against the private part of child, then such type of injury is possible. 32. As regards formal witnesses, it needs to be noticed that they, including the Investigating Officer, have fully corroborated testimony of the victim. Their testimonies have been discussed, in detail, by the learned trial court and even otherwise, learned counsel for the appellant has not addressed any arguments questioning the correctness and veracity of their statements. 32. As regards formal witnesses, it needs to be noticed that they, including the Investigating Officer, have fully corroborated testimony of the victim. Their testimonies have been discussed, in detail, by the learned trial court and even otherwise, learned counsel for the appellant has not addressed any arguments questioning the correctness and veracity of their statements. He would only argue that the findings recorded by the learned trial court are perverse, inasmuch as the learned trial court has simply relied upon testimony of the child, who was tutored, without taking into consideration other evidence on record. 33. Having dealt with the evidence that has come on record, we really do not subscribe to the contention of the appellant as we have found the testimony of the child victim to be qualified to be termed of sterling quality. 34. Apart from the testimony of the victim, which could have been sufficient in the instant case to convict the appellant, we find sufficient corroboration in the testimonies of PW1 to PW6, even though some of them have been declared as hostile, but then, in principal, they all have supported the case of the prosecution at least insofar as it relates to the appellant being there at the place of incident with the victim and the victim found to be holding her ‘pajami’. 35. To recapitulate, the victim PW15 was specific in her statement that the appellant had come to her house and taken her with him on the pretext of showing him the shop, where "Ram Dev's" products were sold. She also stated that appellant had given her Rs.10/- and "Kurkure" and then taken her towards Kangoo ‘nalla’. The victim has specifically stated that appellant had taken her towards the fields where there were trees and where he put off his ‘pajama’ and then pulled down her ‘pajami’ and touched her private parts. Thereafter, the appellant did "shame-shame" (wrong act), due to which she was having pain in her private parts. She specifically deposed that she was holding her ‘pajami’ in her hand, when one aunty came there and helped her putting on her ‘pajami’. 36. Thereafter, the appellant did "shame-shame" (wrong act), due to which she was having pain in her private parts. She specifically deposed that she was holding her ‘pajami’ in her hand, when one aunty came there and helped her putting on her ‘pajami’. 36. To this extent, even the prosecution witnesses namely PW2 Saroj Devi and PW-6 Swaroop Chand, who otherwise have been declared hostile, have also confirmed that when they reached the spot, girl was crying and she caught hold of PW6 Swaroop Chand from his legs and she was holding her ‘pajami’ in her hands. It has also come on record that PW2 Saroj Devi then helped the victim putting on her ‘pajami’. 37. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that no blood or semen of the appellant was found in the samples examined at RFSL Dharamshala, however we find the same to be of no consequence as it has specifically come in the evidence of PW9 Dr. Shilpa that when she examined the victim, she found that hymen was torn, fresh bleed (sic blood) was there. Redness was seen around the hymen. These injuries noted on the private parts of the victim are sufficient to prove that the appellant had committee aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim. In such circumstances, it is absolutely immaterial even if no semen was found. 38. It needs to be remembered that victim in the instant case is below 12 years of age and her date of birth has been proved by PW10 Kuldeep Chand, Secretary, Gram Panchayat Basnoor, vide date of birth certificate, Ext. PW10B, which records her date of birth to be 26.7.2008. The appellant, even though has cross-examined this witness, but there is nothing on record to suggest that date of birth of the prosecutrix was not correctly recorded. 39. Since the victim was aged about 10 years at the time of incident, the learned trial court after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly convicted and thereafter sentenced the appellant and such findings in teeth of the aforesaid discussion cannot, in any manner, be said to be perverse or contrary to the record. 40. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.