JUDGMENT 1. - This appellant has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Bhilwara, vide judgment dated 31.10.2001, passed in Sessions Case No. 41/2001, for the offences under Section 376, 366, 363 and 323 IPC, and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and various fines, maximum being life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment. of fine, to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 376 IPC. 2. The present prosecution arose on the basis of the statement of one minor Saroj Kumari (Ex.P/4), recorded by the S.H.O., Police Station Subhash Nagar, on 11.7.1999, at the residence of Gangabishan Rathi, on receiving telephonic information. According to Ex.P/4 when the C.I. reached the house of Gangabishan, he found in the Porch of the house available, Gangabishan, his wife Indra Rathi, one Basant Maratha, Sohan Banjara and Miss Saroj D/o Banshilal Soni, aged about 8 years, who was in a terrified condition On interrogation, the girl deposed that it was at about 8.00 PM on that day, she was playing all alone outside her house, that the appellant came on a Bicycle, told her that her elder sister Seema has come on the Bus Stand, and has called her, and therefore, she should accompany him. With this, the appellant carried Saroj on his bicycle by making her sit on the frame-rod of the bicycle. Enroute, from one Grosser Shop, he purchased Biscuits and gave to eat to Saroj. Then instead of taking to Bus Stand, she was taken to Riverbed, where she was fell down, undressed, and was ravished (she has given the details of the act). Feeling pain, she screamed, but accused did not yield. She bled, and received injuries on the neck and other parts of the body. Thereafter, she became senseless, and when she gained sense, there was nobody near her. However, on seeing the light of Tube light from a house, she somehow walked to that house, and called the inmates of that house, who asked her as to what happened, whereupon, she narrated the whole happening, then those inmates called the neighbours, before whom, she again narrated the whole happening. Thereafter, those people made a telephonic call to police. She also stated that even now she is suffering pain and bleeding. 3. On this report, a case under Section 363, 366, and 376 IPC was registered. Thereafter, those people made a telephonic call to police. She also stated that even now she is suffering pain and bleeding. 3. On this report, a case under Section 363, 366, and 376 IPC was registered. The girl was medically examined by the Medical Board for determination of age, so also for the sexual assault. Likewise, other necessary investigation was also undertaken, and after completing the investigation, challan was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class No. 2, Bhilwara. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the case was committed, and ultimately, was tried by the learned trial court. 4. Learned trial court framed the charges against the appellant for the offences under Section 363, 366, 376 and 323 IPC. During trial, the prosecution examined some 18 witnesses, and tendered in evidence some 29 documents. The accused in his statement under Section 313 adopted the stand of denial, and tendered in evidence some previous statements of some of the prosecution witnesses. 5. Learned trial court after appreciating the evidence found the victim Saroj Kumari to be of the age between 6 to 8 years, at the time of incident, believed the version about her having been ravished by the appellant. 6. Learned trial court also found her statement to be corroborated by the circumstances i.e. that at that time itself, at about 9-9-30 PM, the prosecutrix had gone to the house of Gangabishan Rathi in terrorised condition, the other circumstance is that she immediately narrated the whole happening to Gangabishan, witnesses and the police. The next circumstance relied upon is that at the time when she reached the house of Gangabishan, her Underwear was soiled with blood. The next circumstance is that immediately after the incident, the report was lodged in the form of Percha Bayan, Ex.P/4, learned trial court also found that the Underwear of the victim and the accused were stained with semen, the Underwear of the victim so also-the soil taken from the spot of incident, were stained with human blood, learned trial court further believed that from the medical evidence also, it is established that her valve was injured, and was having blood, the victim was having blood on her neck, which corroborate the story of penetration in absence of any other material on record to show the victim to have received the injuries in any other manner. Consequently, the learned trial court convicted the appellant. 7. Assailing the impugned judgment, it was mainly contended that learned trial court was in error in convicting the appellant, inasmuch as, the victim is a tutored witness, who does not understand the meaning of the term "Rape" cykRdkj and is deposing only as tutored by the parents etc., from the medical evidence, no sexual intercourse is established, no seminal stains have been found on the private parts, hymen has been found intact, and that the Doctor has clearly deposed that the injuries found on the Valve could be a result of any scratching and that the Doctor has also admitted that the blood can be found on the Valve if it comes with Urine. With this, it is contended that since the victim's father did not like the appellant having any acquaintance or relation with the elder sister of the victim, wholly false case has been cooked up against him, by joining hands with PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, so as to make an attempt to permanently put him behind the bars, and it is for this reason that PW-1 and PW-2 have turned hostile. In the next place, it is contended that in any case, the sentence awarded is highly excessive, and since the appellant is behind the bars since July 1999 itself, the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and sentence. 9. We have considered the rival submissions, and have closely scanned the entire prosecution evidence, with the assistance of the learned counsel. 10. True it is that the victim PW-5 is a minor child. True it also is that the victim has admitted in her statements, in cross-examination, that she does not understand the meaning of term "Rape" cykRdkj , and has denied suggestion about having used this word in the earlier part of her statement on the tutoring of her father. But then, that is not the whole beginning and end of the matter, inasmuch as, the fact at the same time, does also remain that the victim is minor, and from the series of questions put to her by the learned trial court before commencement of recording her statement, it is clear that she is intelligible witness, who understands the things. In that background, a look at her statement would show that, she has given vivid description as to what she was doing, how accused came, how did she know him earlier, how did he carry her away, where she was carried, and how incident was committed. Significantly, for describing the precise act committed by the accused, she has not at all used the word Rape cykRdkj . I may at this stage itself gainfully quote the precise statement give by her : " mlus eq>s jsr esa vkM+h iVd nhA fQj mlus esjh pM~Mh [kksyh vkSj [kqn dh isUV dh pSu [kksyh vkSj mldh eqruh dks esjs is'kkc djus dh txg esa Mky fn;kA ftlls esjs is'kkc dh txg esa nnZ gksus yxkA eSaus cpkvks&cpkvks dh vkokt dh vkSj fpYykbZ ysfdu og esjs mij iM+k jgk vkSj tcjnLrh djrk jgkA esjs is'kkc djus dh txg esa [kwu vk x;s vkSj eSa csgks'k gks xbZA " 11. With this, what is significant to note is that according to her, the appellant left her on the spot, and it was after her coming to sense, that when she spotted a light in the vicinity, she somehow carried herself to that place, knocked the door of that house, and narrated the whole incident to the inmates, who called the neighbours, to whom, the incident was re-narrated, then the police was called. This conduct of the victim, immediately after the incident, speaks volumes in favour of reliability of her version, in absence of anything to show that Gangabishan PW-4, to whom, the victim narrated the whole incident, immediately after its happening, had any axe-to-grind against the appellant. So far as tutoring by the father is concerned, father had come on the scene much later, inasmuch as, it was in the process of his making search for the girl, who was missing from the house, that he came across police people, who informed him that the girl is in the hospital, thereupon he reached the hospital, and found the victim. Thus, much before meeting of the, father and daughter, the victim had already narrated the whole thing to Gangabishan and his wife Indra. Gangabishan and Indra (PW-4 and PW-8) have fully corroborated the entire story having been narrated to them by the victim, and their testimony has not been shaken in any manner in cross- examination. Thus, much before meeting of the, father and daughter, the victim had already narrated the whole thing to Gangabishan and his wife Indra. Gangabishan and Indra (PW-4 and PW-8) have fully corroborated the entire story having been narrated to them by the victim, and their testimony has not been shaken in any manner in cross- examination. This coupled with the fact that on medical examination by the medical board, the victim was found to be having abrasion on the right side of neck, so also on the left side, blood was found around Valve, abrasion was present on the posterior Fourchette oozing. Though the medical board chose to remark that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape, but then, the things as found on the medical examination, coupled with the Forensic Science Laboratory Report, Ex.P. 22, if considered in the light of the evidence led by the prosecution, to establish that the articles examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory had remained intact from the time of their respective seizure till they reached the forensic Science Laboratory, leaves no manner of doubt that, the incident did take place on the victim Saroj in the manner, and in the circumstances deposed by her. 12. Much was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the things found in the medical examination, at best indicate some sexual assault, or attempt to rape, but they do not establish the commission of rape. We are afraid, we cannot pledge our judicial discretion, and opinion to mere opinion expressed by the medical board in Ex.P/8. The medical evidence is only to assist the Court as expert evidence. The Doctor is not a witness of fact, evidence given by him is of an advisory character. To use the words of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the expert witness is expected to put before the Court all materials inclusive of the data and enlighten the Court of technical aspects of the case, so that, the Court, although not an expert, may form its own judgment on the materials after giving due regards to the experts' opinion. Adopting these parameters, we have to decide as to whether the symptoms found on the body of the victim, if appreciated, in conjunction with the vivid description of the actual happening as given by the victim, makes out the offence under Section 376 IPC or not ? Adopting these parameters, we have to decide as to whether the symptoms found on the body of the victim, if appreciated, in conjunction with the vivid description of the actual happening as given by the victim, makes out the offence under Section 376 IPC or not ? For answering this questions instead of undertaking a lengthy discussion of every word, and sentence of the statement, and undertaking a long drawn discussion, we may gainfully seek support from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey, reported in 1992(3) SCC, p. 204 , which was a case relating to victim of rape being 8 years of age, having suffered the episode on the Sofa in the Drawing Room, and she having not narrated the precise incident even to her parents for couple of days, appreciating the statement of girl quoted in para 46 of the judgment, which is almost in identical terms, as is the statement in the present case, and considering the medical evidence, and ingredients of rape as required by Section 375, Hon'ble Supreme Court found the act to he making out offence of rape. Then in para 57, Hon'ble Supreme Court propounded the parameters to be adopted in the matter of quantum of punishment, by recording a message in the following terms : "57. Before parting with the judgment, with deep concern, we may point out that though all sexual assaults on female children are not reported and do not come to light yet there is an alarming and shocking increase of sexual offences committed on children. This is due to the reason that children are ignorant of the act of rape and are not able to offer resistance and become easy prey for lusty brutes who display the unscrupulous, deceitful and insidious art of luring female children and young girls. Therefore, such offenders who are menace to the civilised society should be mercilessly and inexorably punished in the severest terms." 13. Therefore, such offenders who are menace to the civilised society should be mercilessly and inexorably punished in the severest terms." 13. If the present case is considered on these principles, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant simply, cannot be accepted, and no fault can be found with the learned trial court, in its recording finding of guilt of the appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC.So far as the convictions for other offences are concerned, they were not challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments, and on perusal of the record, we also do not find any error in those convictions. Coming to the question of sentence, following the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court as quoted above, and considering the totality of circumstances, in our opinion, the sentence awarded by the learned trial court does not require any interference.The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the appeal has no force and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed - Conviction Sustained. *******