JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant was the accused on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu bearing Sessions Case No. 106 of 1994. He was found guilty under section 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo five years Rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment). It was also directed that the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the present action had been resorted to. 3. Brief resume of the facts is that informant Phoola Ram, instituted FIR with the Police Station Kotwali Jhunjhunu on July 14, 1994 alleging therein that his daughter Suman aged six years returned home weeping. There were marks of teeth bite on both of her cheeks, on enquiry she told him that Jaipal (appellant) on the pretext of giving her copy and book took her to a lonely place outside the village. There he removed her clothes and made her lie on the ground and raped her. Case under Section 363 and 376 IPC was registered against the appellant and investigation commenced. Charge sheet was filed and case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge where charges under section 366A and 376 IPC were framed. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses. Thereafter statement of the appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The appellant produced twelve documents but did not examine defence witness. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments convicted the appellant as indicated here in above. 4. The prosecution story is primary based on the testimony of the prosecutrix Kumari Suman (PW 4), Phoola Ram (PW 5), Sheesh Ram (PW 6) and medical evidence. There is no denying that the prosecutrix at the relevant time was minor of about 6 years of age. Dr. Satish Chandra Vyas (PW 13) had carried out the medical examination of the prosecutrix and found following marks of violence on the person (i) Semi circular abrasions 3 cm x 1/2cm. on right cheek. (ii) Round swelling 4 cm. x3 cm. on mid of left cheek. (iii) Bruise l1/2cm. x1 cm. on near Right Nipple. (iv) Bruise 2 cm. x 1 cm. on left nipple. (v) Bruise 3 cm. on right cheek. (ii) Round swelling 4 cm. x3 cm. on mid of left cheek. (iii) Bruise l1/2cm. x1 cm. on near Right Nipple. (iv) Bruise 2 cm. x 1 cm. on left nipple. (v) Bruise 3 cm. x 1 cm. just above naval. (vi) Abrasion 3 in number 2 cm.x2cm. on mid back 1" away from each other. (vii) Abrasion 2 cm. x 1 cm. on lower left chest. (viii) Abrasion 2 cm. x 1 cm. on left shoulder. Injuries No. (ii) and (viii) were teeth bite. 5. On examination of the genital following marks were found - (i) Laceration through out the surface of labia minora. (ii) Laceration tear on Forchutue. (iii) Fresh blood was coming from vagina orifice. (iv) Hyman was found torn Bleeding on touch. The Doctor opined that above findings were suggestive of forceful penetration of Male sex organ in vagina. 6. Appellant was also medically examined by the Doctor Satish Chand Vyas (PW 12). Following injuries were found on his (i) Abrasion 3 cm. x2 cm. on back of right elbow. (ii) Abrasion 3 cm. x 3cm. on back of left elbow. (iii) Abrasion 5 cm. x3 cm. or front of Right knee. (iv) Abrasion 1/2cm. x 1/2cm. on the penis. Smell of alcohol was coming from breath. Nothing was suffestive that the appellant could not perform sexual intercourse. 7. The only argument of Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that it is a case of mistaken identity. The appellant was framed by the father of the prosecutrix and Sheesh Ram. Learned counsel referred the statement of prosecutrix Suman, who admitted in her cross examination that she had seen the appellant for the first time on the date off incident and his name was disclosed to her by Sheesh Ram. 8. On the other hand, learned public prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and contended that the statement of prosecutrix could not be shattered in the cross examination. Act of committing rape by the appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt. 9. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the record. 10. Site plan (Ex R 4) was drawn on July 14, 1994. The appellant was found lying stark naked at the spot under intoxication. Marks of blood were also noticed near him. His underwear lying near him was seized vide Ex.R6. Underwear of Suman. was also seized. 9. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the record. 10. Site plan (Ex R 4) was drawn on July 14, 1994. The appellant was found lying stark naked at the spot under intoxication. Marks of blood were also noticed near him. His underwear lying near him was seized vide Ex.R6. Underwear of Suman. was also seized. The appellant was arrested from the spot while lying naked. The prosecutrix identified him in the court. The appellant was named in the FIR and witness Sheesh Ram (PW 6) stated that he saw prosecutrix Suman going towards her field with tears in her eyes and Jaipal, the appellant was lying naked. Phoola Ram (PW 5) the father of the prosecutrix deposed that Suman informed him about the evil act of Jaipal with her. The ocular testimony has been fully supported by medical evidence. The statement of the appellant under section 313 Cr.RC. in which he deposed that he was falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity, cannot be accepted. I am of the considered view that the prosecution established the charges under sections 366 A and 376 of Indian Penal Code against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 11. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gangula Satya Murthy (1997 Cr.L.J. 774) , their Lordships of the Supreme Court in para No. 27 of the judgment propounded thus- "27. Before parting with the case we would like to point out that the Courts are expected to show great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses, which are not of a fatal nature to throw out allegations of rape. This is all the more important because of late crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. It is an irony that while we are celebrating woman's rights in all spheres, we show little or no concern for her honour. It is a sad reflection and we must emphasise that the Courts must deal with rape cases in particular with utmost sensitivity and appreciate the evidence in the totality of the background of the entire case and not in isolation. One of us (Dr. It is a sad reflection and we must emphasise that the Courts must deal with rape cases in particular with utmost sensitivity and appreciate the evidence in the totality of the background of the entire case and not in isolation. One of us (Dr. Anand, J.) has observed in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384 : (1996 AIR SCW 998, para 20) thus : "The Courts, therefore, shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensivity." We think it is appropriate to reiterate those observations in this case." 12. In the case on hand, the appellant has committed heinous crime with the minor girl aged 6 years and he does not deserve any sympathy. He was rightly convicted by the learned court below. The contention of the learned counsel Shri A.K. Gupta that the sentence may be reduced from 10 years to 7 years cannot be accepted. Under sub-section (2)(f) of section 376 IPC, act of rape committed on a woman under 12 years of age is punishable with 10 years imprisonment and fine. In the instant case the rape was committed by the appellant with a minor girl aged 6 years. Thus the appellant was rightly sentenced by the learned court below. 13. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The record of the case be sent back forthwith. *******