UMESHWAR PANDEY, J. The appellant-Ram Charan stood his trial before the Court of 9th Addl. Sessions Judge, Etah on the charge of committing rape upon the prosecutrix-Usha (PW 4) and has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the aforesaid offence for a period of six years. 2. The facts, as they appear in the evidence, are that Smt. Usha, who was a married girl at the time of incident and was aged about 10 or 12 years, had accompanied the wife of the accused-appellant Smt. Har Devi, to her field in the afternoon of 2-4-1978. Smt. Har Devi had gone there to give some food material and water to the accused. The appellant-Ram Charan was harvesting his wheat crop in the field. Smt. Har Devi left Smt. Usha there stating that she would come back very soon. Finding Smt. Usha all alone in the field, Ram Charan caught hold of her and committed rape against the prosecutrix. She raised voice and cried for help which attracted PW 2-Mitthoo Lal and other witnesses namely Durgpal, Sukhbasi, Diwari and Ram Ratan who were working in the nearby field and they immediately rushed to the scene. The appellant-accused Ram Ratan when noticed the witnesses approaching him, he tried to run away but was immediately apprehended a few paces away from the place of occurrence. The arrest of the accused was affected at about 3. 30 p. m. The complainant-Jai Ram (PW 1) got the report scribed by Ram Swaroop and he alongwith the witnesses accompanied by the accused-Ram Charan under arrest and the prosecutrix-Smt. Usha went to the Police Station Jaithara where the report was lodged at 6. 45 p. m. 3. Station House Officer, Jaithara immediately took up the investigation of the case and recorded the statements of Smt. Usha (PW 4), Jai Ram (PW 1) and other witnesses and proceeded for the place of incident. He prepared a site plan of the place of occurrence (Ext. Ka-9 ). He also recorded the statements of the Mitthoo Lal (PW 4) and other witnesses at the scene of occurrence and thereafter he sent the peticoat of Smt. Usha and underwear of the appellant-accused Ram Charan for chemical examination to the Serologist Lab at Agra. The peticoat and underwear prior to that were taken in possession by the police at the Police Station itself vide recovery memo (Ext. Ka-4 ). The peticoat and underwear prior to that were taken in possession by the police at the Police Station itself vide recovery memo (Ext. Ka-4 ). The Investigating Officer, Sri J. P. Sharma (PW 7), after completing all the formalities and on collection of sufficient evidence submitted charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 376 of I. P. C. 4. On the next day of incident i. e. 3-4-1978, the prosecutrix Smt. Usha was taken to Womans Hospital, Etah and was medically examined by PW 5- Dr. V. Lalvani and a medical report in Ext. Ka-6 was prepared by her. Dr. V. Lalvani found Usha by her appearance to be of about 10 years of age. She had no external injury on the body and her vagina was able to admit only one finger with pain. Hymen of the Usha- prosecutrix was found completely torn and her vagina/hymen was bleeding when touched. Dr. Lalvani thus, opined that Usha was raped within 24 hours. The lady doctor however, after medical examination of Usha did not refer her for further radiological examination etc. in order to get her opinion about the age further confirmed. It was later on in the year 1981 (3-3-1981) Usha was taken to P. W. 8-Dr. Daya Shanker, Radiologist, District Hospital, Etah and her X-ray examination was done and on the basis of that P. W. 8 opined that she was about 16 years of age at that point of time when the X-ray was done by him. He proved the X-ray report in Ext. Ka-12 in the Court. 5. Going backward the peticoat of the prosecutrix and the underwear of the appellant-accused, which were sent to the Serologist at Agra Lab, were examined by Assistant Chemical Examiner, Dr. G. S. Bhatnagar (PW 6) who submitted his report vide Ext. Ka-7. He has proved that report and has stated that he found human blood stains on the peticoat and the stains of semen were found on both of the items i. e. peticoat and underwear. 6. The prosecution in support of its case examined the complainant-Jai Ram father of the prosecutrix- Usha as PW 1, Mitthoo Lal as PW 2, Head Constable Panna Lal as PW 3, Prosecutrix-Smt. Usha as PW 4, Dr. V. Lalvani as PW 5, Dr. G. S. Bhatnagar as PW 6, J. P. Sharma, I. O. as PW 7 and Dr. 6. The prosecution in support of its case examined the complainant-Jai Ram father of the prosecutrix- Usha as PW 1, Mitthoo Lal as PW 2, Head Constable Panna Lal as PW 3, Prosecutrix-Smt. Usha as PW 4, Dr. V. Lalvani as PW 5, Dr. G. S. Bhatnagar as PW 6, J. P. Sharma, I. O. as PW 7 and Dr. Daya Shanker, Radiologist, as PW 8. 7. The defence in support of its version has not examined any witness nor has filed any documentary evidence. 8. The accused in his statement has denied the allegations of committing rape against the prosecutrix and further stated that he was falsely implicated on account of enmity. 9. The prosecution in the present case has furnished ocular account of the incident through the statements of three witnesses namely Jai Ram (PW 1), Mitthoo Lal (PW 2) and the prosecutrix Smt. Usha (PW 4 ). The evidence of the prosecutrix is very positive on the fact that she had accompanied appellants wife Smt. Har Devi to the field of accused. She was left by Smt. Har Devi in the field with the assurance that she would be coming back soon. Finding Smt. Usha all alone in the field, the accused- appellant-Ram Charan forcibly caught hold of her and committed rape. Noticing the arrival of the witnesses at the hue and cry raised by the prosecutrix, the accused when tried to run away, he was apprehended. Likewise, the statement of other eye witness PW 2-Mitthoo Lal, has very consistently supported the version of F. I. R. as well as the evidence of prosecutrix and has stated that on the date of incident when he heard the cries of the prosecutrix, he sensed something foul and immediately rushed to the scene. There he found that the appellant-Ram Charan was committed rape against Smt. Usha and on having noticed arrival of the witnesses when accused tried to run away from the scene, he alongwith other witnesses apprehended him at once. The statement of PW 1 who happens to be father of the prosecutrix and complainant of the case, is also very natural and as per the version given by him, he was working in a field which was located at a distance of about 150 paces from the place of incident. The statement of PW 1 who happens to be father of the prosecutrix and complainant of the case, is also very natural and as per the version given by him, he was working in a field which was located at a distance of about 150 paces from the place of incident. On hearing the cries of his daughter, he immediately rushed to the scene and found the accused Ram Charan trying to run away from the scene, but he was apprehended then and there only by the witnesses. These statements of fact may be coming from the prosecutrix or her father or the other eye witness Mitthoo Lal who is also related to Smt. Usha, but the same cannot be disbelieved on account of being evidence given by the interested witnesses. The trial Judge while appreciating the evidence of these witnesses giving ocular account of the incident, has taken into consideration other circumstantial evidence available on the record leading to an irresistible conclusions that in fact the appellant accused had committed the offence of rape upon Smt. Usha. 10. The first and foremost corroborative evidence is the medical report, which was prepared by PW 5 - Dr. V. Lalvani. She has found the hymen of a minor girl completely torn. She was, though married at that time but had not visited her husbands home. The vagina was admitting only one finger and that itself was a clinching evidence to arrive at the conclusion that the prosecutrix had not under gone cohabitation with a male prior to the date of incident. Had she been used to sexual intercourse, her vagina could easily admit two fingers. In addition to the above findings, Dr. Lalvani also found that the prosecutrix on touch of her hymen/vagina was bleeding. That showed that the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse prior to her examination. The opinion of PW 5 Dr. Lalvani is further that Smt. Usha was subjected to rape within 24 hours of the said medical examination. The defence has cross-examined this witness and has not succeeded to elicit any material as to demolish the credibility of the opinion and findings recorded in the medical report (Ext. Ka-6 ). 11. Besides the aforesaid corroborative medical evidence, the most important circumstance, which comes above all is the spot arrest of the accused appellant. The defence has cross-examined this witness and has not succeeded to elicit any material as to demolish the credibility of the opinion and findings recorded in the medical report (Ext. Ka-6 ). 11. Besides the aforesaid corroborative medical evidence, the most important circumstance, which comes above all is the spot arrest of the accused appellant. The accused was arrested on the scene by the witnesses and was taken to the Police Station and an F. I. R. was lodged. The F. I. R. itself refers to this fact and it has not been denied anywhere in the entire evidence made available in the trial Court. In his statement under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. when the appellant accused was confronted with this circumstance in question No. 3, he made a simple reply that the allegations were incorrect and he was brought by Jai Ram (PW 1) and Sukhbasi from the residence of Nekram of Village Garhi. He does not say as to why and under what circumstances he was taken/arrested from the residence of Nekram by the witnesses. This explanation of the accused is extremely unconvincing. Nothing has been elicited by the defence in the cross examination of the eye-witnesses as to probablise this story of the defence that Ram Charan was apprehended at the residence of Nekram. In fact, no cross-examination has been made to PW 2 Mitthoo Lal on this aspect of the matter. This allegation of spot arrest of the accused has also not been challenged anywhere in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix PW 4. The mere suggestion given to PW 1 in the cross examination that the accused was arrested from the residence of Nekram, cannot lead the Court to sort out and find any truth in this defence theory of the arrest of the accused from the residence of Nekram in village Garhi. It is conclusively established from the evidence of aforesaid three eye witnesses supported by the fact of Ram Charans presence at the Police Station that he was arrested on the spot a place shown by letter b in the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer. This place is inside the field of accused in which the prosecutrix was subjected to rape. No criminal Court can shut its eyes from such a clinching circumstance leading to the culpability of the accused in commission of such an offence of rape. 12. This place is inside the field of accused in which the prosecutrix was subjected to rape. No criminal Court can shut its eyes from such a clinching circumstance leading to the culpability of the accused in commission of such an offence of rape. 12. The other important circumstance which is available on the record is in the shape of chemical examination report (Ext. Ka-7) which was prepared by PW 6-Mr. G. S. Bhatnagar. The Chemical Examiner has found human blood spots on the peticoat of the prosecutrix and spots of semen on the under wear of the accused. Thus, in view of the aforesaid ocular account of the incident supported by strong corroborative evidence leading to the proof of clinching circumstances which fully support the prosecution version, I have absolutely no hesitation in observing that the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant-accused committed rape against the prosecutrix-Smt. Usha in the afternoon of 2-4-1978 and found him proved guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 of I. P. C. 13. Besides the above, the view taken by the trial Judge is not to be interfered with on account of the fact that this being a case of commission of rape which involves the reputation and the social recognition of the family of the prosecutrix, there is no scope of false implication of the accused on account of enmity. Such defence taken by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. cannot be easily acceptable. If there was any motive for the prosecutrix or her father-the complainant- PW 1 to falsely implicate the accused in a criminal case, there could be other offence in which the false implication would have been resorted to and not in a case of rape staking the reputation of family in the society. As such, if this defence has not been accepted by the trial Judge, no defect in the judgment impugned can be find out. 14. In view of what has been discussed above and in the light of the evidence made available on record by the prosecution, this appeal of the accused-appellant Ram Charan does not appear to have any force and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21-4-1981 passed by the IX Addl. Sessions Judge, Etah are hereby confirmed. The accused is on bail. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21-4-1981 passed by the IX Addl. Sessions Judge, Etah are hereby confirmed. The accused is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and it is directed that the Sessions Judge/chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah in compliance to this order shall immediately issue warrant against the appellant to ensure his arrest within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and send him to jail with conviction warrant to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court. 15. Office is directed to immediately transmit the original record as well as a copy of this judgment through special messenger to Sessions Judge, Etah for compliance in the light of the aforesaid directions. .