JUDGMENT - ZOTING D.S., J.:---This is an appeal preferred by the original accused against the order of conviction and sentence dated 31-5-2000 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, in Sessions Case No. 108 of 1998, whereby the accused has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 376 of Indian Penal Code to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for six months. 2. The prosecution case arises out of first information report dated 15-4-1998, Exhibit 18, lodged by prosecutrix Rukhmini d/o Nagorao Dalve, aged 12 years, resident of Wadepuri, taluka Loha. The prosecutrix, the minor girl, lives with her parents, sisters and brothers. The father of the prosecutrix is a small agriculturist and as such the members of the family used to do labour work. On 15-4-1998 at about 3.30 p.m. the prosecutrix along with her mother Anusayabai P.W. 4 and sister Sarjabai had been to the field of one Vinayak Savkar. The wife of Vinayak Savkar was present in the field. The appellant was the servant of Vinayak Savkar. He was performing the ploughing operations in the field of his master. The mother and the sister of the prosecutrix were cutting the grass in the field as they had taken contract of removing the grass from the field of Vinayak Savkar. Anusayabai P.W. 4 the mother of the complainant instructed the prosecutrix to collect grass for the cow from the field of maize. Therefore, Rukhmini went to the field of maize for collecting the grass for the cow. Having seen Rukhmini, the appellant Ananda stopped the work of ploughing. He followed Rukhmini in the field of maize. He told her to do his work and for that purpose he would pay the amount. Rukhmini refused to take money from the accused. He lifted her and carried her in the middle portion of the field of maize. He made her to lie on the ground and committed forcible intercourse with her. Due to intercourse, there was profuse bleeding on the private part of the prosecutrix. She was wearing shirt, petticoat and nicker. All her clothes were stained with blood. She went to her mother. At that time she was weeping and she narrated the incident to her mother Anusayabai P.W. 4, sister Sarjabai and Sumanbai. After the incident, the accused ran away. She was wearing shirt, petticoat and nicker. All her clothes were stained with blood. She went to her mother. At that time she was weeping and she narrated the incident to her mother Anusayabai P.W. 4, sister Sarjabai and Sumanbai. After the incident, the accused ran away. The mother of the prosecutrix approached her husband who was present in the house. The prosecutrix was taken to the Police Station. Prosecutrix lodged report which was reduced into writing at Exhibit 18. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 38 of 1998 was registered under section 376 of Indian Penal Code. P.S.I. Jakkawad P.W. 8 took up the investigation. He noticed that clothes of Rukhmini were stained with blood. Therefore, he attached the clothes under seizure panchanama in presence of two panchas. Prosecutrix was then referred to the Medical Officer for medical examination. As the offence was serious, S.D.P.O. Salunke took over the investigation immediately and he made further investigation. He visited the spot in the field of Vinayak Savkar, where the noticed standing maize crop. He drew panchanama in presence of two panchas. He noticed that the place of incident was trampled. Dr. Deshpande P.W. 2 examined the prosecutrix and issued certificate Exhibit 28. Prosecutrix was also referred for the medical opinion as regards her age. Dr. Khadse P.W. 7 is the Radiologist. After taking the x-ray, he expressed his opinion that the age of the prosecutrix girl was between 12 and 14 years. The accused was found absconding. He was arrested on 2-5-1998. He was also referred to the Medical Officer for medical examination. When he was in the custody of police, he expressed his desire to make a statement. Therefore two panchas were called and in their presence, accused made a statement that he had concealed his underwear in the field of Vinayak Savkar in the crop of maize, and that he would produce the same. The said settlement was reduced into writing. Thereafter he took the police and panchas to the said field and produced the underwear. The underwear was seized under seizure panchanama Exhibit 63-A. During investigation, the Medical Officer collected samples of vaginal swab, pubic hair and venous blood of the prosecutrix. The sample of blood and semen of the accused were collected. All these samples were sent to chemical analyser for chemical analysis. The underwear was seized under seizure panchanama Exhibit 63-A. During investigation, the Medical Officer collected samples of vaginal swab, pubic hair and venous blood of the prosecutrix. The sample of blood and semen of the accused were collected. All these samples were sent to chemical analyser for chemical analysis. Similarly, the blood stained clothes of the prosecutrix and the underwear of the appellant accused were also sent to chemical analyser. After completion of the investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence under section 376 of Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. 3. Offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, hence, the learned Magistrate committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions under section 209 of Criminal Procedure Code. The accused was produced before the Sessions Court. Charge under section 376 of Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused. It was read over and explained to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence is one of total denial. According to the appellant accused, there is dispute between the father of the prosecutrix and him, and, therefore, the father of the prosecutrix implicated him by making a false case. He had not adduced any evidence in the defence. 4. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned A.P.P. and the learned Counsel for the applicant and on going through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, mainly consisting of ocular evidence of the prosecutrix Rukhmini P.W. 1 and the circumstantial evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded held the appellant accused guilty of offence punishable under section 376 of Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him of the said offence to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for six months. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused, he has preferred this appeal challenging the said order of conviction and sentence. 6. Heard respective parties. I have gone through the entire evidence of prosecution and I find that there is ample cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence, direct as well as circumstantial, to sustain the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 6. Heard respective parties. I have gone through the entire evidence of prosecution and I find that there is ample cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence, direct as well as circumstantial, to sustain the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Therefore, I find that the appeal is devoid of any substance and the order of conviction and sentence deserves to be confirmed for the following reasons. 7. It is well settled that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt irrespective of whether or not the accused has made out a plausible defence. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses, as under: DIRECT EVIDENCE : Prosecutrix Rukhmini P.W. 1 MEDICAL EVIDENCE : Dr. Deshpande P.W. 2 Dr. Patil P.W. 6 Dr. Khadse P.W. 7 CIRCUMSTANTIAL : Anusayabai P.W. 4 EVIDENCE PANCHAS : Venkati P.W. 3 Pandurang P.W. 5 Sambhaji Dalvi P.W. 9 Digamber Bodke P.W. 10 Govind Jigle P.W. 11 POLICE OFFICERS : PSI Jakkawad P.W. 8 SDPO Salunke P.W. 12 8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of prosecutrix Rukhmini P.W. 1, mother of prosecutrix namely Anusayabai P.W. 4, the first information report Exhibit 18 lodged by prosecutrix, medical evidence and the report of chemical analyser as regards the analysis of the clothes of prosecutrix from which blood groups "A" as well as "B" have been detected. 9. As regards the occurrence of the incident, the prosecutrix Rukhmini P.W. 1, who has stated her age as 11 years, deposed that, on the fateful day of the incident, she had been to the field of Vinayak Savkar for collecting the grass. At that time, her mother Anusayabai P.W. 4 and sister Sarjabai were working in the same field. She further stated that accused was ploughing the land of Vinayak Savkar. When she started collecting the grass in the crop of maize at 4.30 p.m. the accused stopped ploughing operations and came near her and asked her to accompany him. She further stated that on her refusal, accused lifted her and took her in the portion of the crop of maize. When she started collecting the grass in the crop of maize at 4.30 p.m. the accused stopped ploughing operations and came near her and asked her to accompany him. She further stated that on her refusal, accused lifted her and took her in the portion of the crop of maize. She tried to raise hue and cry, but he pressed her mouth and caused her to lie on the ground, lifted her petticoat, removed his underwear and then he forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her, as a result of which there was a profuse bleeding from her private organ. She stated that due to bleeding, her petticoat was stained with blood. Immediately, after the said act, the accused ran away and she started weeping. Then she went to her mother and disclosed the incident of sexual intercourse and the name of accused. 10. This brings me to consider the evidence of her mother Anusayabai P.W. 4, who unfortunately had an occasion to see the worst condition of her daughter and to hear the disclosure made by her. She stated that she had instructed Rukhmini P.W. 1, 11 years daughter, at 4.00 p.m. to collect the grass from the maize crop of Vinayak Savkar and as per her instructions, Rukhmini had gone to the maize crop. But after some time, when she came back, she was weeping and she (Anusayabai P.W. 4) noticed that the clothes of Rukhmini were stained with blood and blood was oozing from her private part. She categorically stated that Rukhmini made disclosure of the incident of sexual intercourse and the name of the appellant accused to be the perpetrator of the crime. Thus the testimony of the prosecutrix finds corroboration in the testimony of her mother Anusayabai. It is to be noted that the prosecutrix made a complaint immediately before her mother. It is expected that daughter would disclose to her mother the real incident. The conduct of prosecutrix in this regard appears natural. The evidence of prosecutrix is further corroborated by the first information report Exhibit 18 lodged by her at the Police Station on the very day of the incident. In the first information report also she disclosed the entire occurrence as regards the sexual intercourse and the name of the accused. P.S.I. Jakkawad P.W. 8, who was on duty at Sonkhed Police Station had taken down the statement. In the first information report also she disclosed the entire occurrence as regards the sexual intercourse and the name of the accused. P.S.I. Jakkawad P.W. 8, who was on duty at Sonkhed Police Station had taken down the statement. He deposed that first information report has been recorded as per the version of the prosecutrix. He had also supported the version of the prosecutrix and her mother that the clothes of prosecutrix were stained with blood. He seized the clothes immediately in presence of two panchas under seizure panchanama Exhibit 48 and sent the shirt, petticoat and nicker of the prosecutrix to the chemical analyser. Chemical analysis report is at Exhibit 60. It is to be noted that the blood samples of the prosecutrix as well as the accused were collected and the chemical analyser's report reveals that the blood group of prosecutrix is "A" whereas blood group of accused is "B". The chemical analyser's report Exhibit 60 reveals that blood mixed with semen was detected on petticoat of the prosecutrix and the blood mixed with semen detected on the same petticoat gave reaction for both "A" and "B" blood group antigens. Thus it is clear that during chemical analysis, semen was found on the petticoat of the prosecutrix and on analysis of the same, "B" blood group was found. This circumstance is a strong circumstance supporting the prosecution case. Finding of semen of blood group "B", which is the blood group of accused, points out accusing finger towards the accused to show his involvement in the crime. In addition to this, there is medical evidence to prove that rape was committed on the prosecutrix. 11. Dr. Deshpande P.W. 2 gave evidence that on 16-4-1998, prosecutrix Rukhmini was brought in the hospital for medical examination and on examination, he found that hymen was torn completely with flammatory exuate with blood. He further stated that, on examination he found that there was forceful vaginal penetration over patient Rukhmini. Thus the version of the prosecutrix as regards rape further finds corroboration in the medical evidence given by Dr. Deshpande P.W. 2. This clearly shows that there was rape on prosecutrix. The evidence as discussed above of the prosecutrix as well as her mother clearly establishes that the appellant accused is the perpetrator of the crime. 12. Thus the version of the prosecutrix as regards rape further finds corroboration in the medical evidence given by Dr. Deshpande P.W. 2. This clearly shows that there was rape on prosecutrix. The evidence as discussed above of the prosecutrix as well as her mother clearly establishes that the appellant accused is the perpetrator of the crime. 12. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that no independent witness, though available, has been examined in this case. He points out that it has come in the evidence that the wife of the field owner was present. Similarly, some labourers were working in the field, but not a single person out of them has been examined by the prosecution and as such it creatres doubt about the correctness of the prosecution case. In this regard, it is to be noted that Vinayak Savkar is the land owner. It has come in the evidence that his labourers as well as the mother of the prosecutrix were present one field away from the spot of the incident. They are not the eye-witnesses. Under such circumstances, it was not necessary to examine such persons. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that though it is alleged that the incident occurred in the maize crop which was ready for harvest, no injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix and this circumstance, according to him, renders the prosecution story unworthy of credence. 13. In this regard, it is to be noted that Dr. Deshpande P.W. 2, in his deposition, stated that at the time of examination of the prosecutrix, he noticed abrasion over both the thighs over medial third. As there were abrasions over both the thighs, there appears no substance in the contention of the appellant that there was no external injury on the person of the prosecutrix. The said injury must have been received at the time of forcible sexual intercourse committed by the accused with the prosecutrix in the maize crop. The learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that there is no conclusive evidence as regards the age of the prosecutrix. According to the appellant, the age of the prosecutrix is more than 16 years. No documentary evidence viz. The learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that there is no conclusive evidence as regards the age of the prosecutrix. According to the appellant, the age of the prosecutrix is more than 16 years. No documentary evidence viz. birth certificate, school leaving certificate could be produced by the prosecution on record as regards proof of the age of the prosecutrix, because the mother of the prosecutrix stated that she has not admitted the prosecutrix in the school and her husband did not enter the birth dates of children in the concerned register. She categorically stated that her daughter did not attain puberty. Dr. Deshpande has stated that the age of the prosecutrix was between 12 and 14 years. It is to be noted that for ascertaining the age of the prosecutrix, her case was referred to the Radiological expert. Dr. Khadse P.W. 7 is the Radilogist. He deposed that on 16-4-1998 x-ray of Rukhmini P.W. 1 as per X-ray plate No. 1310 has been taken in respect of wrist joint, elbow joint and Iliac crest and to determine the age of Rukhmini P.W. 1, he studied various epiphyses, their appearance and fusion, and recorded his finding on the report Exhibit 45. He opined that the age of the prosecutrix at the time of examination was between 12 and 14 years. Considering the expert's opinion, together with the fact that prosecutrix had not attained the puberty, as disclosed by her mother, there cannot be any doubt that the prosecutrix was not more than 14 years old. At any rate her age was less than 16 years. Sexual intercourse by a man with the girl under 16 years with or without her consent constitutes offence of rape as defined under section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence to show that x-ray plate, on the basis of which the opinion was given, was of Rukhmini P.W. 1. This contention also cannot be accepted as on the x-ray plate Exhibit 46 bearing No. 1310 dated 16-4-1998, the name of Technician and the name of the prosecutrix are mentioned. 14. It is to be noted that while appreciating the evidence in rape cases, the approach of the courts has to be different. This contention also cannot be accepted as on the x-ray plate Exhibit 46 bearing No. 1310 dated 16-4-1998, the name of Technician and the name of the prosecutrix are mentioned. 14. It is to be noted that while appreciating the evidence in rape cases, the approach of the courts has to be different. The principle as regards such approach has been enunciated by the Supreme Court in the latest case reported in A.I.R. 2003 S.C.W. 2541 in the case of (Visveswaran v. State)1. In this case, the Supreme Court has laid down the principle as under: "12. ............... It has to be borne in mind that approach required to be adopted by courts in such cases has to be different. The cases are required to be dealt with utmost senitivity. Courts have to show greater responsibility when trying an accused on charge of rape. In such cases, the broader probabilities are required to be examined and the courts are not to get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies which are not of substantial character. The evidence is required to be appreciated having regard to the background of the entire case and not in isolation. The ground realities are to be kept in view. It is also required to be kept in view that every defective investigation need not necessarily result in the acquittal. In defective investigation, the only requirement is of extra caution by courts while evaluating evidence. It would not be just to acquit the accused solely as a result of defective investigation. Any deficiency or irregularity in investigation need not necessarily lead to rejection of the case of prosecution which it is otherwise proved." 15. Applying the said principle to the present case, when the case is examined having regard to the aforesaid legal principle, broader probabilities are required to be examined and courts are not to get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies which are not of substantial character. 16. On appreciating the evidence and having regard to the background of the entire case, I find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 15-4-1998 rape was committed on Rukhmini P.W. 1 by the accused and as such the accused is guilty of offence punishable under section 376 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused for the aforesaid offence. 17. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused for the aforesaid offence. 17. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the accused has been convicted and sentenced for a period of 7 years and he is in jail for last 5 years, he is a married person and his children depend upon him and under such circumstances, lenient view may be shown as regards the sentence. He further submitted that under such circumstances, sentence of 7 years may be reduced to 5 years i.e. the sentence already undergone. In this regard, it is to be noted that offence of rape punishable under section 376 of Indian Penal Code is a serious offence. The minimum sentence prescribed for the said offence is 7 years imprisonment. Punishment of imprisonment less than 7 years can be imposed for adequate and special reasons like age of the accused. In the present case, accused was 30 years old at the time of commission of offence. He was absconding since the time of commission of offence for a period more than 2 weeks. The investigating machinery, therefore, could not collect evidence which could have been made available immediately had the accused been arrested immediately. It is to be noted that though the accused is a married man, he committed rape on a minor girl aged 12 years old. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, he does not deserve any leniency. Having regard to the serious and heinous type of crime, in my opinion, sentence should be such that it should create deterring effect on the offender and to serve as an eye opener to others who may commit such offence. Thus, considering facts and circumstances, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant for reducing the sentence cannot be accepted. Accordingly, I find that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not call for any interference from this Court. The appeal is devoid of any substance and it deserves to be dismissed. 18. In the result, appeal is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused on 31-5-2000, by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, in Sessions Case No. 108 of 1998 stands confirmed. Appeal dismissed. -----