( 1 ) THIS is a criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 16-11-1990 passed by Sri Allah Raham the then iii Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital dismissing the Criminal Appeal No, 16 of 1987 preferred by the revisionist against the judgment arid order dated 17-1-1987 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nainital in s. T. No. 256/1985 whereby the revisionist was convicted and sentenced under S. 376, i. P. C. for 7 years rigorous imprisonment. ( 2 ) IT has been held by Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of State of H. P. v. Shree kant Shekari (2004) 8 SCC 153 : (2004 Cri lj 4232), as under :-"we do not propose to mention the name of the victim. Section 228-A, I. P. C. makes disclosure of the identity of a victim of certain offences punishable. Printing or publishing name or any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under Sections 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C or 376-D is alleged or found to have been committed can be punished. True it is, the restriction, does not relate to printing or publication of judgment by a High court or the Supreme Court. But keeping in view the social object of preventing social victimization or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence for which Section 228-A has been enacted, it would be appropriate that in the judgments, be it of this Court, High court or lower Court, the name of the victim should not be indicated. We have chosen to describe her as the "victim" in the judgment. "therefore, I describe her "victim" in the judgment. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that victim (PW 2) aged about 10 years daughter of bishan Singh Bist (PW 3) was studying in class V in Nagar Palika School, Subhash nagar. On 31-7-1985 when the victim did not reach home from the school at the scheduled time her father Bishan Singh went to see her. At about 12. 15 p. m. a rickshaw puller named Rasal of Bihar near Beer sahiba School from the side of school was seeing on which the victim was sitting. Blood was oozing from her vagina. He enquired from her daughter about this but due to unconsciousness and pain she could not tell anything. It appeared that rape had been committed upon her by the appellant. Blood was oozing from her vagina. He enquired from her daughter about this but due to unconsciousness and pain she could not tell anything. It appeared that rape had been committed upon her by the appellant. The complainant got her daughter admitted in women Hospital, Haldwani. Bishan Singh bist (PW 3) submitted written report (Ex. Ka 2) at P. S. Haldwani at 2. 25 p. m. and on the basis of written report (Ex. Ka 2) FIR (Ex. Ka 4) was prepared and a case under Section 376, I. P. C. was registered vide G. D. entry (Ex. Ka 5 ). The distance between the place of occurrence and police station was 11/ km. ( 4 ) THE victim was medically examined by Dr. Raj Laxmi (PW 1), Medical Officer, women Hospital, Haldwani on 31-7-1985 at 12. 50 noon. On internal examination the following injuries were found on the person of the victim. Swelling and redness of the vulva and vagina present. Hymen was torn. Fresh bleeding was coming from vagina. Two fingers could be introduced with difficulty. There was a tear in anterior vagina wall about 2. 5 cm. Another tear was present in post. Vagina wall was about 3 cm. Vaginal smear were taken and sent to Pathologist for presence of spermatozoa. To assess the age of the girl x ray of right wrist and elbow joint were advised. The x-ray report is (Ex. Ka 3 ). The doctor opined that the age of the girl was about 10 years. ( 5 ) THE investigation of the case was conducted by S. I. Kamnendra Kukreti (PW 6)who visited the place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Ex. Ka 6 ). After completing the investigation charge-sheet (Ex. Ka 7) was submitted against the revisionist. ( 6 ) CHARGE was framed against the revisionist under Section 376,1. P. C. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 7 ) THE prosecution in support of its case examined (PW 1) Dr. Raj Laxmi who proved medical report (Ex. Ka 1 ). PW 2 is the victim. PW 3 Bishan Singh Bist proved written report (Ex. Ka 2 ). PW 4 Rajendra Singh is the witness of fact. PW 5 Dr. S. K. Gupta proved x-ray report (Ex. Ka 3) and x-ray plate (Ex. 1 ). PW 6 S. I. Kamnendra Kukreti investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet (Ex. Ka 1 ). PW 2 is the victim. PW 3 Bishan Singh Bist proved written report (Ex. Ka 2 ). PW 4 Rajendra Singh is the witness of fact. PW 5 Dr. S. K. Gupta proved x-ray report (Ex. Ka 3) and x-ray plate (Ex. 1 ). PW 6 S. I. Kamnendra Kukreti investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet (Ex. Ka 7 ). ( 8 ) THE revisionist in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. denied the allegations of the prosecution and stated that the police was demanding money from him. He could not pay. He had old enmity with bishan Singh and Rajendra Singh. Rajendra singh is the Sala (brother-in-law) of Bishan singh. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The revisionist has not adduced any evidence in defence. ( 9 ) THE learned trial Court after appraisal of entire evidence on record found the revisionist guilty under Section 376,1. P. C. for committing rape upon the victim and convicted and sentenced the appellant per judgment and order dated 17-1-1987 as indicatedabove. Aggrieved by this, the revisionist preferred appeal before the Sessions judge and the learned Additional Sessions judge dismissed the appeal of the appellant and confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded against the revisionist by the learned trial Court. The revisionist has challenged before this Court the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court. ( 10 ) I have heard learned Amicus Curiae and learned A. G. A. and perused the evidence on record. ( 11 ) THE learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the prosecution could not prove the guilt against the revisionist beyond doubt. It was further submitted that the findings given by the learned trial Court as well as by the appellate Court are perverse and against the record. Learned AGA refuted the contention. Both the Courts below had held that the revisionist committed rape upon the victim and the prosecution story is cogent and believable. The learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court had believed the evidence of the victim. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable. The prosecution adduced the victim as (PW-2) who stated in her evidence that she was a student of class-V and she went to her school. When she was coming from the school she went to bring her brother from montessori school. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable. The prosecution adduced the victim as (PW-2) who stated in her evidence that she was a student of class-V and she went to her school. When she was coming from the school she went to bring her brother from montessori school. When she found that the school of her brother was not closed she was waiting for her brother beneath a tree, the revisionist came to the victim and he told her that her father had sent a bundle of apple which is kept in his house and further asked her to take that apple from his house. The victim at a first instance denied that she would not be going to bring the apple from the house of the revisionist but later on insistence of the revisionist she left her bag at the photo shop of (PW-4) Rajendra singh and left with the revisionist. When she reached in Gola River the revisionist took her to the bushes and he committed rape upon the victim behind the bushes of the river. Thereafter, the victim came to the road in semi unconscious condition. She took a rickshaw. When she was going towards her house, her father met her near Beer Sahiba school. On seeing her father she started weeping. The father saw her condition. The blood was oozing from her vagina. She was taken to the hospital. Her medical examination was done and a report was lodged at the police station. It is also in the evidence that the age of the victim was 10 years at the time of the incidence. The prosecution also adduced the evidence of the father of the victim who took her to the hospital and he saw her condition. He has narrated what he had seen. The prosecution also produced (PW-4) Rajendra Singh stated in his evidence that he saw the revisionist and the victim going towards Gola river before the rape was committed. He has also stated that the revisionist insisted her to accompany him to bring the apple from his residence. The victim kept her bag in the shop of Rajendra singh (PW-4) and went with the revisionist. Rajendra Singh (PW-4) has further stated in his evidence that he went to the hospital in the evening and he saw the condition of the victim there. The victim kept her bag in the shop of Rajendra singh (PW-4) and went with the revisionist. Rajendra Singh (PW-4) has further stated in his evidence that he went to the hospital in the evening and he saw the condition of the victim there. ( 12 ) THE defence has made lengthy crossexamination to all the witnesses but the defence could not elicit anything from their cross-examination. The witnesses remained unshaken during cross-examination. ( 13 ) THE victim was medically examined by Dr. Raj Laxmi (PW-1) on 31-7-1985 at 12. 50 noon and she stated that the age of the girl was assessed as 10 years. On internal examination the doctor found that hymen was torn. Fresh bleeding was coming from the vagina. The medical examination also corroborates the evidence of (PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 ). ( 14 ) THERE is prompt FIR in this matter. The incident took place at 12. 50 noon and the FIR was lodged at 2. 25 p. m. There was no chance of false implication of the revisionist. ( 15 ) THE revisionist has taken defence that he had old enmity with Bishan Singh (PW-3) and Rajendra Singh (PW-4 ). During cross examination the defence had put the suggestion to the prosecution witnesses that rajendra Singh (PW-4) had to borrow Rs. 2,500/- to the revisionist and he had in collusion with Bishan Singh (PW-3)falsely implicated in this case. No father or mother of a girl will like falsely involvement of her daughter in a rape case. Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her selfesteem and dignity - it degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child or a minor, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. A rapist not only causes physical injuries but more Indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman i. e. her dignity, honour, reputation and not the least her chastity. Rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman; it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. Rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman; it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is a crime against basic human rights, and is also violative of the victims most cherished of the fundamental rights, namely, the right to life contained in Article 21. The Courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely. A socially sensitized Judge is better statutory armour in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and provisos. Thus the theory put by the defence is totally improbable and unbelievable. The totality of the circumstances appearing on record discloses that the victim or her father did not have a strong motive to falsely involve the revisionist. The Court should have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of the prosecution. Thus I am totally in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the appellate court. ( 16 ) IN view of the above discussion I am of the opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the revisionist. No interference is required by this court. The revision has no merit and is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the revisionist by the learned trial Court are confirmed. ( 17 ) LET the lower Court record be sent back to the Court concerned for compliance. Compliance report be submitted within two months. Revision dismissed. --- *** ---