Judgment D.N.Prasad, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Shri Satyendra Singh, Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 54/91 by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 376, IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years. 2. The prosecution case in brief as stated that on 22.8.1990 informant Mahendra Lohra had gone to work in the field of Mahtos of his village and his wife had also gone outside the village for fetching grass at about 2.00 p.m. after leaving her daughters, Prabha Kumar, aged about six years, victim and Sumitra Kumari aged about three years, who were staying in the house. At about 5 p.m. his neighbour Bharat Sahu came to the Informant at the field and informed that his daughter Prabha has been raped by Rashid Mian at about 5 p.m. and she was weeping and also blood was oozing out and the villagers have collected at his house. On receiving this information, he came to his house and saw that a crowd of villagers collected at his house and his daughter Prabha Kumari was sitting and weeping and her pant was stained with blood. The informant in presence of the villagers enquired from his daughter, to which the victim Prabha Kumari narrated that the appellant, Rashid Mian, her neighbour took her in his lap and carried her inside his house and committed rape on her after laying her on the ground. Blood started oozing out from her vegina and her pant was soaked with blood. Thereafter, the accused/appellant ran away from there. The victim any-how reached her house and started weeping. Accordingly, FIR was lodged by the father of the victim. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant for the offence under Section 376, IPC. The appellant/accused appeared in the lower Court and the charge was framed under Section 376, IPC against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty. 3. The defence case as alleged that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The witnesses were examined in the lower Court and after considering the evidence on record, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him to underdo R.I., in the manner as mentioned above. 4. 3. The defence case as alleged that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The witnesses were examined in the lower Court and after considering the evidence on record, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him to underdo R.I., in the manner as mentioned above. 4. As many as eight witnesses have been examined by the prosecution in support of its case, of whom PW 7 is the doctor, who examined the victim, Prabha Kumari and found the sign of rape. He proved the said report, Ext. 2 and as per his opinion, there is evidence of sexual intercourse. He also found injury on her private part and blood was coming from her private part. PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 are very much consistent about the occurrence and they have consistently deposed that the victim Prabha Kumari was found with bleeding coming from the private part. Other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution also supported the prosecution case. The seizure-cum-production list also goes to prove that blood stained pant was seized by the police at the relevant time. PW 8, the father of the victim admitted to have known about the occurrence from the Bharat, who also supported the prosecution case. In this way, it is evident from the evidence on record that the prosecution has fully established the case against the appellant for committing rape on Prabha Kumari. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that Investigating Officer in this case has not been examined, which makes the case suspicious. It is well-settled that non-examination of the Investigating Officer will not be sufficient to throw the whole prosecution case unless prejudice is being caused to the appellant. In the instant case, there is overwhelming evidence against the appellant, who committed rape on the minor girl who is aged about 5-6 years and the doctor also corroborated the incident of rape. 6. It is further submitted that PW 4 cannot be said to be an independent witness as he is a tutored witness who narrated the incident at the instance of his father. But, this much inconsistency will not be sufficient to ignore the whole prosecution case, when it has fully been established that the appellant, Rashid Mian Committee rape on the minor girl. Thus, the submission of the learned Counsel on both score has got no substance. But, this much inconsistency will not be sufficient to ignore the whole prosecution case, when it has fully been established that the appellant, Rashid Mian Committee rape on the minor girl. Thus, the submission of the learned Counsel on both score has got no substance. It is pointed out that the victim Prabha Kumari died before the trial of the case starts in the lower Court and as such she could not be examined. 7. The courts are expected to show great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. This is all the more important because of late crime against woman is general and rape is particular. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution have consistently supported the case of rape which has been corroborated by the medical evidence. In the circumstances, there is no scope to discard the prosecution story particularly when the entire evidence is very specific and definite. 8. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I find that the prosecution has fully established its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, I do not find any merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court is, hereby, affirmed.