Judgment ( 1. ) Appellant Vishwanath stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to R. I. for seven years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default whereof, to further undergo R. I. for three months by the impugned judgment and order dated 20-2-2001 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Harda, in Sessions Trial No. 29/99. ( 2. ) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 3-11-1998 at about 11.45 a. m. prosecutrix Deepti (PW. 14) was going to her house from her school. Appellant Vishwanath was standing outside his house. He was known to the prosecutrix as he was her tutor. Appellant called the prosecutrix in his house on the pretext that he has got some work. When the prosecutrix entered his house, appellant took her on the roof of his house and committed rape on her. The prosecutrix tried to raise alarm but the appellant gagged her mouth. After the incident prosecutrix came to her house and narrated the incident to her mother Subhadra (PW.2). At that time father of the prosecutrix was not at home. After his return prosecutrix narrated the incident to him also and went along with him to police station Timarni, and lodged the report Ex. P6. ( 3. ) Prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. She was examined by Dr. Smt. Pushpa Baranga (PW.3) who found her vagina hot and red. Tenderness was also present and an old tear was found on her hymen. Pubic hair of the prosecutrix were collected. Lady Doctor found stains in the underwear of the prosecutrix which was recovered from her and kept in a sealed cover. Two slides of the vaginal smear of the prosecutrix were prepared. Dr. Baranga opined that no definite opinion can be given about the rape without the examination of slides and clothes. Ex. P. 5-A is her report. ( 4. ) Appellant was also sent for medical examination. He was examined by Dr. Laxmi Narain (PW. 1) who found him capable of sexual intercourse. Ex. P.I-A is the report of Dr. Laxmi Narain. ( 5. ) After investigation, a challan for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC was filed against the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Session. ( 6. ) The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. Ex. P.I-A is the report of Dr. Laxmi Narain. ( 5. ) After investigation, a challan for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC was filed against the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Session. ( 6. ) The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded that he was a tutor of the prosecutrix. She failed in the examination, therefore, her parents did not give him tuition fees and when he asked for the same he has been falsely implicated. He also pleaded that he is not capable of intercourse. ( 7. ) On the basis of above prosecution case, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established its case and accordingly, by the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. ( 8. ) Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence aforesaid, the appellant has filed this appeal. ( 9. ) I have heard K. S. Rajpoot, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ku. Mamta Billore, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State and perused the record of the trial Court. ( 10. ) Shri Rajpoot, learned counsel for the appellant led me through the record and contended that the learned Additional sessions Judge erred in accepting the prosecution evidence. He submitted that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant are illegal and incorrect, as such, are liable to be set aside. ( 11. ) On the other hand, Ku. Mamta Billore, learned State counsel has supported the judgment recorded by the learned trial Judge convicting and sentencing the appellant as indicated above. ( 12. ) Prosecutrix Deepti has stated that on the date of incident she was the student of Class 8th. When she was the student of class 7th, appellant was her tutor. On the date of incident she was coming back from her school to her house. On the way, appellant who was standing at his door called her in his house on the pretext that he has got some work. When she entered, appellant caught hold of her and took her on the roof of his house and when she tried to raise alarm, appellant had gagged her mouth and committed rape on her. On the way, appellant who was standing at his door called her in his house on the pretext that he has got some work. When she entered, appellant caught hold of her and took her on the roof of his house and when she tried to raise alarm, appellant had gagged her mouth and committed rape on her. After the incident she came to her house and narrated the incident to her mother. At that moment, her father was not at home. When he returned from Sodalpur, she went with him to lodge the report. She has also stated that she was medically examined by the lady doctor and the doctor had also recovered her underwear. ( 13. ) Subadhra (PW.2) who is the mother of the prosecutrix has also stated that on the date of incident when she was working in her kitchen, prosecutrix came weeping from the school and narrated her the incident. ( 14. ) The evidence of the prosecutrix has been corroborated by first information report promptly lodged by her. The evidence of prosecutrix is further corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Baranga who has stated when she examined the prosecutrix, she found redness and tenderness in her vagina. She recovered underwear of the prosecutrix and collected pubic hair. She also took the vaginal smear of the prosecutrix and prepared two slides. The underwear and pubic hair were sent to F. S. L., Gwalior for examination. Ex. P. 12 is the report of Asstt. Chemical Examiner, F. S. L., Gwalior, which reveals that there was presence of semen and spermatozoa on the under wear and slides of the prosecutrix. ( 15. ) Dr. Laxmi Narain who had examined the appellant has stated that appellant was capable of sexual intercourse. Thus, the evidence of prosecutrix has been corroborated by the first information report by the statement of her mother, medical evidence and report of FSL, Gwalior. ( 16. ) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant was tutor of the prosecutrix. As the prosecutrix failed in the examination, tuition fee was not paid to him and when he insisted for payment of tuition fee, he has been falsely implicated by the parents of the prosecutrix. ( 16. ) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant was tutor of the prosecutrix. As the prosecutrix failed in the examination, tuition fee was not paid to him and when he insisted for payment of tuition fee, he has been falsely implicated by the parents of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has given the evidence under the influence of her parents, therefore, her evidence must be scrutinised with abundant caution and care and her statement cannot be considered to that of reliable witness. He further submitted that the evidence of prosecutrix should be assessed as the evidence of any other evidence and all that she says cannot be accepted on the face value. ( 17. ) On careful scrutiny of the evidence there is nothing unnatural in the conduct of the prosecutrix. Normally no girl would come forward to make a statement against her honour to a person other than the member of her family, therefore, the evidence of prosecutrix cannot be discarded lightly. The testimony of the victim in case of sexual offence is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, Court should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of victim of sexual assault alone to convict accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every rape case. It must not be overlooked that a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is the victim of another persons lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her testimony with suspicion treating her as if she were an accomplice. ( 18. ) In this case, not only the evidence of prosecutrix is natural but also inspires confidence. It is also corroborated by the evidence of her mother and other witnesses. Normally no mother would come forward to make a humiliating statement of having been raped against the honour of her daughter unless it was true. The presence of redness and tenderness on the vagina justifies the statement of the prosecutrix that there has been a rape on her. ( 19. ) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that rape is alleged to have committed on rough surface. Had it been so, some kind of abrasions were bound to appear on the back of the prosecutrix. The presence of redness and tenderness on the vagina justifies the statement of the prosecutrix that there has been a rape on her. ( 19. ) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that rape is alleged to have committed on rough surface. Had it been so, some kind of abrasions were bound to appear on the back of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix is a young girl of tender age, therefore, she could not resist the sexual assault. Only because no abrasions were found on the back or any kind of injury during her medical examination it cannot be said that no such incident has taken place. ( 20. ) Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that in the letter addressed to Regional Director, FSL, Gwalior, by Suptd. of Police Harda, Ex. P. 11 it has been clearly stated that appellant was incapable of sexual intercourse. Appellant, aged 63 years, has also stated in his examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. that he is not capable of intercourse but in view of the evidence of Dr. Laxmi Narain, which has not been challenged at all in the cross examination, it is well established that appellant is capable of sexual intercourse and the contention is sans substance. ( 21. ) The learned trial Judge in his judgment has discussed the evidence in detail. The findings of the trial Court are based on cogent reasons. Looking to the evidence of the prosecutrix which is corroborated by her mother, first information report, medical evidence and report of FSL, Gwalior. I am of the opinion that there is overwhelming evidence. ( 22. ) In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 2000/- cannot be said to be harsh in any manner. In the absence of special reason minimum sentence prescribed for the offence of rape is seven years. In a case of rape, law requires that punishment should not be awarded less than seven years of rigorous imprisonment. I do not find any reason much less special and adequate reasons to award a lesser sentence than minimum prescribed for the offence. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant is hereby maintained. Appeal dismissed.