JUDGMENT - BATTA R.K., J.:---The appellant was tried for rape of the prosecutrix under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition, he was also tried for criminal intimidation under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution had in all examined 12 witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondiya, vide judgment dated 27-4-2001 held the appellant guilty for the offence of rape under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one year. For the offence under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant was sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for one month. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The appellant was in custody in connection with the offences since 31-1-2000 and the benefit of set off under section 428 of Cri.P.C. was given. The appellant challenged his conviction and sentences in this appeal. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that as revealed by the prosecutrix (P.W. 1), on 30th January, 2000 she had gone to the field to collect fire wood. In between her field and that of her aunt, there are four five fields. Her aunt and nephew were also there. The prosecutrix had gone to the field of Budha for plucking beans of Lakhodi. When she was plucking the beans, the appellant came there, caught her from her waist and fell her on the ground. The appellant sat on her legs and removed her nicker. After removing her nicker, the appellant had sexual intercourse with her. Dhanraj (P.W. 3) came there and at that time, the appellant ran away. The prosecutrix was sitting on dhura and her aunt also came there. According to the prosecutrix, she had received injuries on her hands and legs as also on her both elbow joints and the back. According to her, the clothes she were wearing at the time of incident, were seized by the police and article No. 1 ear ring was attached by the police from the scene of offence which was pointed by her. The said articles were sent to the Chemical Analyser. The prosecutrix was also examined by the Medical Officer (P.W. 8). After completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 3. The said articles were sent to the Chemical Analyser. The prosecutrix was also examined by the Medical Officer (P.W. 8). After completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 3. The case of the appellant is that he was falsely implicated. In 313 statement of the appellant recorded by the police, he stated that he had gone to his field and there he heard cry of one lady, 'Melo Melo' and he saw Rameshwar Budhaji on dhura. Said Rameshwar had thrown something and he ran away and that lady was crying, 'Santosh Mi Melo'. According to the appellant, he saw the prosecutrix and Santosh Mate in the field and both of them were nude. The appellant has further stated that said Santosh told him that he was having old relations with the prosecutrix and he should not disclose the fact to anyone. He also stated that, Santosh threatened him. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellant has urged before me that the evidence of Dhanraj (P.W. 3) falsifies the stand taken by the appellant who has stated that after hearing the cry of the prosecutrix, he rushed to that site and saw the appellant by one hand gagged mouth of the prosecutrix and by the other he was removing her nicker and that when he raised noise, the appellant ran away. This, according to the learned Advocate for the appellant, rules out the possibility of rape and in view of the said statement of Dhanraj, implicit reliance cannot be placed on the testimony of the prosecutrix. He further stated that the trial Court has already disbelieved that the prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age. That since panchas have not supported the attachment of clothes as also blood semen, the Chemical Analyser's report cannot be used against the appellant. He also pointed out that there is no evidence on record to sustain the charge of criminal intimidation under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, since the prosecutrix has nowhere stated that she was threatened and as such the conclusion of the trial in this respect cannot be sustained. Learned Advocate for the appellant lastly argued that the sentence imposed is too severe taking into account the age of the appellant and the sentence calls for reduction. Learned Advocate for the appellant lastly argued that the sentence imposed is too severe taking into account the age of the appellant and the sentence calls for reduction. Learned Advocate for the appellant has stated that there is no mention of ear ring in the F.I.R. and as such the recovery of ear ring from the scene of offence has been planted on account of which the said recovery cannot be taken into consideration. 5. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand, urged that the evidence of the prosecutrix could not be shaken in cross-examination that her testimony gets full corroboration from medical evidence on record as also the report of the Chemical Analyser besides the evidence of Sitabai (P.W. 2). According to the learned A.P.P., the trial Court has in detail examined all the relevant aspects as also the evidence on record and the conclusion arrived at on the basis of which conviction has been recorded are well founded. He, therefore, contends that the appeal be rejected. 6. The prosecutrix (P.W. 1) has stated that on 30th January, 2002, at about 4.00 p.m., she had gone to the field. Her aunt and nephew were also in the field. According to her, there are four, five fields in between her field and that of her aunt. From her field, she had gone to the field of Budha for plucking beans of Lakhodi. While she was plucking the beans, the appellant came there, caught her waist and fell her on the ground. The accused sat on her legs and removed her nicker. After removing her nicker, the accused had sexual intercourse with her. She was sitting on dhura and was crying. In the meantime, Dhanraj (P.W. 3) came there and the accused had ran away. Her aunt Sitabai (P.W. 2) also came there. She has further stated that there were injuries on her hands and legs besides injuries on both the elbow joints and the back. She has further stated that the clothes which she were wearing were seized by the police which she identified as article Nos. 2, 3 and 4. She also identified ear ring (article No. 1) belonging to her which was attached by the police from the scene of offence which was pointed out by the prosecutrix. It is pertinent to note that the prosecutrix was not even cross-examined on material particulars of her evidence. 2, 3 and 4. She also identified ear ring (article No. 1) belonging to her which was attached by the police from the scene of offence which was pointed out by the prosecutrix. It is pertinent to note that the prosecutrix was not even cross-examined on material particulars of her evidence. The prosecutrix could not at all be shaken during the cross-examination and there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve her testimony. Her testimony independently inspires confidence and has been rightly accepted and relied upon by the trial Court who had the benefit of observing the demeanour of the prosecutrix. 7. The evidence of the prosecutrix gets full corroboration from the medical evidence on record. Dr. Prashant (P.W. 8) has stated that on 31-1-2000 at about 2.00 p.m., he had examined the prosecutrix and found following injuries on her person :- "1. Contusion over left scapular region, 5 cm x 4 cm. 2. Contusion over left supramamary, 4 cm x 3½cm. 3. Abrasion over right elbow posteriorly, 3 cm x 3 cm. 4. Abrasion over left elbow posteriorly, 2 cm x 1½ cm. 5. Contusion over right leg just below buttock, 3 x 2 cm." In general examination I noticed secondary sexual characters well developed, breast well-developed, axillary hair presence pubic hair present. Local examination of vagina. On inspection I found whitish sticky material present over pubic hair and vulva. Some hair stick to the skin due to whitish material. On per speculum examination I noticed abrasion present over labia minora right side, cervix found congested, whitish material present in the vaginal canal. On P.V. examination by one finger tenderness present over posterior fornix, hymen was absent, few clotted blood was present. In my opinion, said prosecutrix was raped within 24 hours i.e. vaginal intercourse had been occurred. The injuries Nos. 1 to 5 on person of prosecutrix may cause by hard and blunt object, within 24 hours and 8 to 10 days time was sufficient for healing." He has further stated that he has collected blood sample, vaginal swab, pubic hair sample and blood sample on guise piece and sealed them and handed over to the lady Police Constable. He has also stated that injuries No. 1 to 5 on the person of the prosecutrix are possible if rape is committed on a girl on hard and rough surface. He has also stated that injuries No. 1 to 5 on the person of the prosecutrix are possible if rape is committed on a girl on hard and rough surface. During cross-examination, he stated that the prosecutrix was not habitual for sexual intercourse and her local examination of vagina he had formed opinion that the patient was raped within 24 hours before her examination. 8. Thus, the medical evidence fully corroborated the version of the prosecutrix who had even suffered injuries on various parts of her body during the course of rape. 9. Dr. Prashant (P.W. 8) had also examined the accused/appellant on 1-2-2000 and found two injuries on his person, namely :- "1. Abrasion over left knee, 2 cm x 1 cm the wound was in process of healing. 2. Abrasion over right knee, 1 cm x ½ cm. the injury was in the process of healing." In his opinion, injury Nos. 1 and 2 on the person of the accused were caused by hard and blunt object within 48 hours which coincides with the incident. On 3-2-2000 at about 12.30 p.m., the appellant was again produced for collecting sample of semen. Dr. Prashant (P.W. 8) had collected blood sample and pubic hair of the appellant and after sealing the same he handed over the same to the Police Constable. According to him, injury Nos. 1 and 2 possible if anyone commits rape or sexual act on hard and rough surface. In cross-examination, he stated that while doing sexual act the knee joints came in contract of the surface and, therefore, he had formed the opinion that the injuries are possible while doing sexual act. Thus, even the examination of the appellant points out to his involvement in the crime in question. The appellant had taken the defence that he was falsely implicated and in fact it was one Santosh Mate who was seen by him naked along with the prosecutrix and said Santosh Mate had told him that he had old relations with the prosecutrix and told him not to disclose the same to anyone He also states that Santosh Mate threatened him. This version of the appellant was rightly rejected by the trial Court because the same was neither put to the prosecutrix nor to Santosh Mate who was examined as P.W. 7. This version of the appellant was rightly rejected by the trial Court because the same was neither put to the prosecutrix nor to Santosh Mate who was examined as P.W. 7. The appellant admits his presence in the field and the false defence put up by him is an additional link to connect him with the crime. 10. In addition to the above evidence, there is report of the Chemical Analyser who found that Jangya (Ext. 1) of the prosecutrix was stained with blood in the middle and appeared to be washed. The doctor also found two semen stains at Exh. 2 (Parkar) of the prosecutrix which was located in the middle portion and the same stains are of 'O' group. The blood group of the semen (Exh. 12) of the appellant is of 'O' group. The appellant, in a statement under section 313 of Cri.P.C., has admitted that his blood sample and pubic hair were taken but he has denied that his semen was taken. The blood group of the appellant vide Exh. 10, is of 'O' group. The semen which is found on the Parkar (Exh. 2) is of 'O' group which also connects the appellant. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the doctor that the semen of the appellant was taken for grouping. It is no doubt true that panchas had been won over, but on that count alone, it is not possible to disbelieve that the semen sample of the appellant was not taken by the Doctor (P.W. 8) who was specifically spoken about the same in his deposition. 11. Added to the above evidence is the statement of Sitabai (P.W. 2) who has stated that the prosecutrix had gone to the field of Budhaji from where she came crying. According to Sitabai (P.W. 2), at that time she was in her field and the prosecutrix narrated her that the appellant had fallen her on the ground, removed her nicker and sat on her person after gagging her mouth. She also states that her grandson Dhanraj went towards the field after hearing the cry of the prosecutrix and when Dhanraj ran after the appellant, but the appellant rushed on Dhanraj. There is no reason whatsoever to discard the evidence of Sitabai since the said evidence is relevant under section 6 of the Evidence Act. She also stated that the appellant lifted stone for attacking Dhanraj. There is no reason whatsoever to discard the evidence of Sitabai since the said evidence is relevant under section 6 of the Evidence Act. She also stated that the appellant lifted stone for attacking Dhanraj. Dhanraj has stated that he heard the cry of the prosecutrix and that he went in that direction. He has stated that he ran after the accused, but the accused gave slaps and pelted stones on him. He has further stated that the prosecutrix had narrated to him that the accused had removed her nicker and had sexual intercourse with her. His deposition that he saw the accused gagging the mouth of the prosecutrix by one hand and removing the nicker by other hand was rightly disbelieved by the trial Court. It is a matter of common knowledge that the witnesses for various reasons including that they may not be disbelieved add embellishment and give improved version and it is here that the role of the Judge comes into play since the Judge has to separate the chaff from the grains. The trial Court has, therefore, rightly discarded this piece of evidence of Dhanraj (P.W. 2). Except for this piece of evidence, there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve Dhanraj (P.W. 3) to whom the prosecutrix narrated the incident immediately after the incident. It is not in fact necessary to refer to any ruling on the subject matter, but I would only like to mention the judgments of the Apex Court in (Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat)1, reported in A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 753 and (State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain)2, reported in 1990(2) Bom.C.R. 630 . The Apex Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (cited supra) has laid down that if the evidence of victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the probabilities factor does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from the medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. In the case under consideration, the evidence of the prosecutrix not only inspires confidence but is corroborated on various points referred to above and there is no reason as to why her testimony should be discarded. 12. In the case under consideration, the evidence of the prosecutrix not only inspires confidence but is corroborated on various points referred to above and there is no reason as to why her testimony should be discarded. 12. There is in fact no merits in all the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the appellant including the mentioning of the ear ring in the complainant which was later on recovered from the scene of offence as the scene of offence was pointed out by the prosecutrix. The trial Court has rightly pointed out that non mentioning of Article in the circumstances is not sufficient to discard the recovery of ear ring from the scene of offence pointed out by the prosecutrix. There is no merit in the submission made by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the evidence of P.W. 3, Dhanraj has the effect of negating the testimony of the prosecutrix in toto. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for in the conviction of the appellant under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Advocate for the appellant has stated that taking into consideration the age of the appellant, the sentence awarded is too severe. I do not find any merit whatsoever on this score also since the sentence imposed can by no stretch of imagination be stated to be either excessive or unappropriated so as to interfere with the sentence. The discretion of the trial Court in matters of sentence cannot be interfered with unless there is sound and cogent justification to interfere with the same. 14. In so far as the offence of criminal intimidation is concerned, the prosecutrix, in her evidence, does not at all speak of any threat or intimidation though from her evidence it can be made out that in spite of her resistance she was raped on account of which not only she had received injuries on various parts of body but also the appellant. The charge against the appellant of criminal intimation of the prosecutrix, in my opinion, is not proved on the basis of material evidence on record. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code has to be quashed and set aside. 15. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The charge against the appellant of criminal intimation of the prosecutrix, in my opinion, is not proved on the basis of material evidence on record. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code has to be quashed and set aside. 15. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 17/2000 vide judgment dated 27-4-2001 of Additional Sessions Judge, Gondiya, is maintained, but the conviction and sentence for the offence under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. Appeal partly allowed. -----