JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16th May, 1988, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kota, in Sessions Case No 113/1987, by which the appellant Bhagga, has been convicted under S. 376 IPC as well as under S. 354 IPC. Appellant has been sentenced under section 376 IPC to undergo 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine he will suffer 3 months. The learned Sessions Judge, also sentenced the accused appellant for the offence under S. 354 IPC to undergo one years r i. and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine the accused appellant will further suffer 15 days R.I. Both the sentences were d reacted to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution story unfolded in the FIR. is that on 23rd January, 1987, prosecutrix Mst. Lad Bai, daughter of Shri Kishan went to the field with Manohar daughter of Chhitar, for the taking grass. It is further alleged that accused appellant Bhagga. came there and he compelled them to go in the field of Prasadi with him. There is a further allegations that the accused committed rape with Lad Bai, prosecutrix. Manohar, was also with her and she was sitting at a distance of about 3 years the age of the prosecutrix is about 10 years. However, taking into consideration the medical report the Court has come to the conclusion that she is about 12 years of age. t he incident took-place at about 9.30 a.m. and F I R was lodged same day at 4.00 p.m. In the F.I.R. the name of the accused appellant Bhagga, has been mentioned and the name of his father has not been mentioned. Prosecutrix Lad Bai, was examined by Medical Jurist on 24-1-1987, by Dr. Abdul Rasheed Khan, P.W. 8 and the Doctor, found the following injuries on her person and prepared the injury report which is Ex. P. 13. and the injuries of prosecutrix Lad Bai, are as under:- 1. Separation of thigh is painful, 2. The paranium is lowering dry blood at the valva area. 3. The hymen is completely torn. The edges are red swollen and painful in touch 4. The vegina admits little finger with pain. There is fresh blood on finger stable. 5. There are no signs of general infection. 3. Separation of thigh is painful, 2. The paranium is lowering dry blood at the valva area. 3. The hymen is completely torn. The edges are red swollen and painful in touch 4. The vegina admits little finger with pain. There is fresh blood on finger stable. 5. There are no signs of general infection. 3. The Doctor, has also opined that the age of the prosecutrix is about 10 to 12 years and someone has committed rape with prosecutrix Lad Bai. 4. Prosecution has examined 10 witnesses including the prosecutrix Lad Bai, P.W. 1, Manohar, who is alleged to be with her Ramkaran, P.W. 7 has also seen the accused Bhagga, while he was running after commuting rape. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued only on the point that the appellant was not the person who committed rape and there is one other stand whose name is also Bhagga Singh, living in the same village and he might have committed rape- As far as the question of commission of rape is concerned, it it not in dispute but only the question of identity of the accused is in dispute P.W. 1, prosecutrix Lad Bai, has appeared in the witness-box and she is a child witness. Her age has been recorded as 11 years. She has narrated the whole story and stated that the accused present in the court has committed rape upon her Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he prosecutrix admits that there is one more Sardar namely Bhagga Singb, and he is living in their village Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she was not knowing the name of other of accused Bhagga. A suggestion was made in the cross-examination by the counsel for the appellant that the rape was committed by the other Bhagaa Singh, and not by the present appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the face of the person who has committed rape was partly covered. The prosecutrix has also stated that the present appellant is not living in their neighbour-hood but he is living at a distance of quarter to mile. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the prosecutrix has stated that before occurrence he has not seen the accused. The prosecutrix has also stated that the present appellant is not living in their neighbour-hood but he is living at a distance of quarter to mile. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the prosecutrix has stated that before occurrence he has not seen the accused. P.W. 2, Manohar, remained through-out with the prosecutrix from morning to evening She has narrated that the accused committed rape with the prosecutrix Lad Bai, P.W. 1, and she was with her and she had to sit at a distance of few yards. She further states that they saw a driver in the way and prosecutrix Lad Bai, was crying and telling him She has further stated that she saw the accused for the first time A suggestion was made by the counsel for the appellant is that the name of the accused is Dilbag Singh and not Bhagga Singh. However, this suggestion was not accepted and the witnesses have stated that he is the same person who has committed rape and his name is Bhagga Singh. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further assailed the statement of both the witnesses that they are the child witnesses and the face of the person who has committed rape was partly covered and both the witnesses have stated that they have not seen the accused. 6. Learned P.P. while dealing with the evidence of these witnesses have replied that there was no enemity whatsoever and both the witnesses have said that appellant Bhagga, has committed rape with the prosecutrix. In the arrest memo which was prepared on 24th January, 1987, i.e. on the next day of the occurrence the investigating agency has specifically mentioned that Bhagga alias 4` Dilbag Singh, is the person who has committed rape upon the prosecutrix. Learned P.P. further points out that in the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. the name of Bhagga alias Dilbag Singh, is mentioned. Learned P.P submits that the appellant has not said in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C. that his name is only Dilbag and not alias Bhagga Singh. At the earliest opportunity i.e. on 24.1.1988, at the time of against or at the time of preparing the recovery memo the accused could have said that his name is only Dilbag and not Bhagga. Mr. P.C. that his name is only Dilbag and not alias Bhagga Singh. At the earliest opportunity i.e. on 24.1.1988, at the time of against or at the time of preparing the recovery memo the accused could have said that his name is only Dilbag and not Bhagga. Mr. Shnmal, submits that cumulative effect of all the facts lead us to conclude that the accused name is Bhagga alias Dilbag and the evidence should be appreciated, taking note of this fact. He further points out that the witnesses have said that the accused is living at a distance of quarter to a mile and he is not, neighbour, this fact shows that they have seen the accused but they have not met the accused. He further submits that in the cross-examination the witness of the tender age cannot understand the consequence of technical words and there is no reason to dis-believe the statement of the witnesses. He further states that both the witnesses have identified the accused in the Court, as they were known to him as he was living it a distance of quarter to a mile. P.W. 3, Chhitar Jal, who is the father of Manohar, P.W. 2, has stated that both the girls P.W. 1, Lad Bai and P.W. 2, Manohar, have stated that accused Bhagga, committed rape with Lad Bai, P.W. 1, P.W. 7, Ram Karan, is the driver and he has been relied upon by the Court also and he also stated that he was the accused running and both the witnesses have said that accused committed rape upon the prosecutrix Lal Bai. He has also identified the accused in the Court. 7. I have heard the rival contention made by the learned counsel for both the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the identification, parade was necessary to hold that the appellant has committed rape upon the prosecutrix. From the statement of P.W. 1, Lad bai, P.W. 2, Manohar, P.W. 7, Ramkaran, I am satisfied that the identification parade is not necessary and the person living near by and known to each other I fail to under-stand why the girls of tender age and the father of the girls will like to implicate the appellant. No suggestion has been made to any of the witness by the accused during the cross-examination that there was any enmity. No suggestion has been made to any of the witness by the accused during the cross-examination that there was any enmity. In such circumstances, there is no motive to implicate a false person. The very fact is that the accused himself has not denied at the time of preparation of the arrest memo at the time of recording the statement at the time of framing of the charge and at the time of recording the statement under S. 313 of the Cr P.C. that he is not at all Bhagga @ Dilbag Singh. The use of name Bhagga alias Dilbag altogether different with the fact he has not been confronted or denied by the accused at any stage of trial and hold that the accused namely Bhagga also a person who has committed rape with the prosecutrix. I agree with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge, and it is no necessary to discuss it in detail the evidence and the identity of the accused has been established. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited before me the case of Darbara Singh v. The State 1977 Cr. L.R. 530 , this case does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is not a case of dying declaration but it is a case in which the prosecutrix Lad Bai P.W. 1, has identified the person in the Court who has committed rape upon the prosecutrix. The facts of the cited case does not apply in the instant case. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant fails and is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******