Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT Kanhaiyalal stands convicted for offences punishable under section 376, IPC and sentenced to R. I. for ten years, by the impugned judgment and order dated 21-12-1998, passed by Sessions Judge, Raisen, in sessions Trial No. 52/97. ( 2. ) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24-1-97 at 4. 00 P. M. prosecutrix Meera Devi (P. W. 1) aged about 9 years was playing in her house. Her mother Smt. Paratava (P. W. 3) was busy in cooking. Her father Chotan (P. W. 2) had gone out of his house for some work. Appellant enticed the prosecutrix, took her to his house on the assurance that he will give her toffee and money and committed rape with her. When the prosecutrix began to weep, appellant gave her toffee and two coins of ten paise each. The prosecutrix came back weeping and narrated the whole incident to her mother. Blood was oozing out from the private part of the prosecutrix. After a while, father of prosecutrix returned home who was informed about the incident by the prosecutrix. Father, in turn, informed the incident to the Panchas, Sarpanch and other persons of the village. On the same day around 8. 15 P. M. , FIR was lodged at police Station, Chitrangi. ( 3. ) THE prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. She was examined by Dr. Kalpana Ravi (P. W. 8), Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, sidhi, who reported that secondary sex characters of the prosecutrix were not developed. On examining the private part she found that external genital organs of the prosecutrix were not well developed. Bruises and abrasions were present in the middle of labia majora and labia minora. Her hymen was torn. Tear was at 6 oclock position. Blood was oozing out from the wound. Dr. Kalpana Ravi opined that prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse within 24 hours of the examination. Two slides of secretia were prepared by the Dr. Kalpana Ravi and were handed over to constable along with the underwear of the prosecutrix in a sealed cover for chemical examination. ( 4. ) THE appellant was also arrested. He was sent for medical examination. He was examined by Dr. Madan Mohan Sharma, who found him capable of sexual intercourse. His semen was taken. His underwear and pubic hair were also collected and handed over to the constable in a sealed packet. ( 4. ) THE appellant was also arrested. He was sent for medical examination. He was examined by Dr. Madan Mohan Sharma, who found him capable of sexual intercourse. His semen was taken. His underwear and pubic hair were also collected and handed over to the constable in a sealed packet. However, the report of Forensic Science Laboratory could not be received. ( 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 Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated. ( 7. ) ON the basis of above prosecution case, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution established its case for the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC 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 Ku. Nirmala Raikwar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Hemant Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State and perused the record of the Trial Court. ( 10. ) KU. Nirmala Raikwar, learned Counsel for the appellant led me through the record and contended that the learned Sessions Judge erred in accepting the prosecution evidence. She 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, Shri Hemant Shrivastava, learned State counsel has supported the judgment recorded by the Trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant as indicated above. ( 12. ) MEERA Bai (P. W. 1) has stated that on the date of incident, in the afternoon, appellant enticed her and took her to his house and committed sexual intercourse with her which resulted in oozing of blood from vagina. Accused persuaded her not to inform about the incident to her parents. Accused gave her a toffee and two coins of ten paise each. She also stated that after the incident, she returned to her home and narrated the incident to her mother. She has also stated that she lodged the report (Ex. Accused persuaded her not to inform about the incident to her parents. Accused gave her a toffee and two coins of ten paise each. She also stated that after the incident, she returned to her home and narrated the incident to her mother. She has also stated that she lodged the report (Ex. P-l) at the police station on the same day. ( 13. ) THE version of the prosecutrix has been corroborated by paratava (P. W. 3) and Chotan (P. W. 2), mother and father of prosecutrix respectively. Both of them have stated that the prosecutrix had narrated them about the incident. ( 14. ) THE version of the prosecutrix has been further corroborated by medical evidence. Dr. Kalpana Ravi (P. W. 8) examined Meera Bai, aged about 9 years on 25-1-97 and found that her secondary sex characters were not well developed. She also found bruises and abrasions in the middle of labia majora and labia minora. Her hymen was torn. Tear was at 6 oclock position. Blood was oozing out from the wound. Dr. Kalpana Ravi opined that prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse within 24 hours of the examination. Appellant was examined by Dr. Madan Mohan Sharma, who has opined that appellant is capable of sexual intercourse. Nothing has been brought in the cross-examination of these witnesses to disbelieve their evidence. ( 15. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is always a danger in accepting the evidence of a child witness as under influence she might have been caused to give out a version by persons who have influence on her, therefore, her statement can not be considered to be that of a reliable witness. A witness who has not administered oath is unsafe to be trusted wholesale. ( 16. ) THE contention can not be accepted. The evidence of Meerabai is not at variance with the evidence of grown up persons. Meera Bai is a witness of truth and not a witness of imagination. The evidence of prosecutrix is natural. It can not be said to be concocted or embellished to any extent. Her evidence can not be said to be infirm or untrustworthy. Probability factor also renders it worthy of credit. ( 17. Meera Bai is a witness of truth and not a witness of imagination. The evidence of prosecutrix is natural. It can not be said to be concocted or embellished to any extent. Her evidence can not be said to be infirm or untrustworthy. Probability factor also renders it worthy of credit. ( 17. ) THE testimony of a victim in a case of sexual offence is vital and when it is corroborated by other witnesses and by medical evidence, Court should not find any difficulty to act on the testimony of the witness of sexual assault to convict an accused, where the testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Normally no parents would come forward to make a humiliating statement against the honour of their daughter of having been raped unless it was true. ( 18. ) THE evidence of prosecutrix which is corroborated by the version of her parents, FIR lodged by her and medical evidence lend an unfailing assurance that she is a credible witness. ( 19. ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction recorded by the Trial Court against the appellant. So far as the sentence is concerned, the age of the prosecutrix at the time of occurrence was nine years and in any case below twelve years and, therefore, the case falls within the purview of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 376, ipc and the law requires in such cases that punishment should not be awarded less than ten years of rigorous imprisonment which may be for life. I do not find any reason much less special and adequate reason to award sentence of imprisonment less than ten years. ( 20. ) THE appeal is accordingly dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant is hereby maintained. Criminal Appeal dismissed.