JUDGMENT S.L. Jain, J. Appellant Chhotelal Bhumia stands convicted for offence punishable u/s 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for ten years, by the impugned judgment and order dated 30-4-2003, passed by XVIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 14/2003. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 3-11-2002, prosecutrix Durga Bai, a girl aged about eight years, was playing along with another girl. Roshni outside her house. The appellant took her towards Kiriya Nala and committed rape on her. Mother of Roshni informed Parwati Bai (PW-1), the grandmother of the prosecutrix that the appellant has taken away the prosecutrix towards Nala. She, along with her husband and Mahesh (PW-2) went towards Nala in search of the prosecutrix. As Mahesh was going faster than her, he reached the spot earlier where he found the prosecutrix weeping. He brought the prosecutrix to Parwati Bai. Thereafter, Parwati along with her husband and other relatives, went to the police station and lodged the FIR, Ex. P-1. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination to Lady Elgin Hospital, Jabalpur. She was examined by Dr. Smt. Sharda Mishra (PW-8) who found the marks of bruise over the neck of the prosecutrix and blood stains over nose. On local examination she also found dried blood stains over the hymen of the prosecutrix. Hymen was torn at 6 O'clock position. A perineal tear was present. Dr. Sharda Mishra (PW-8) was of the opinion that the repair of the tear required general anaesthesia, therefore, she referred the prosecutrix to Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur for examination by an expert. It was also requested that after examination and stitching of the tear the patient may be sent back to Elgin Hospital for further management of perineal tear. After the needful, the patient was sent back from Victoria Hospital to Elgin Hospital, Jabalpur where Dr. Sharda Mishra (PW-8) recovered the clothes of the prosecutrix which she wore at the time of incident and her examination. Vaginal swab of the prosecutrix was collected and two slides were prepared. Recovered clothes and the slides were handed over to the police constable concerned in the sealed cover for chemical analysis. Ex. P-4 is the report of Dr. Smt. Sharda Misra (PW-8). The appellant was arrested and was sent for medical examination. He was examined by Dr. A.K. Verma (PW-10), who found him capable of sexual intercourse. Dr. Recovered clothes and the slides were handed over to the police constable concerned in the sealed cover for chemical analysis. Ex. P-4 is the report of Dr. Smt. Sharda Misra (PW-8). The appellant was arrested and was sent for medical examination. He was examined by Dr. A.K. Verma (PW-10), who found him capable of sexual intercourse. Dr. Verma also found an abrasion on the ear, thigh and glance penis of the appellants. He collected the semen and pubic hair of the appellant. An underwear containing blood and semen like substance, which the appellant wore at the time of incident, was also recovered by Dr. Verma. Ex.P-7 is the report of Dr. A.K. Verma (PW-10). The clothes of the prosecutrix, the slides of her vaginal smear, the underwear of the appellant and bottle of his semen were sent for chemical examination. Ex.P-20 is the report of Forensic Science Laboratory which discloses that on all the articles human spermatozoa was found. After investigation, a challan for offence punishable u/s 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Session. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under sections 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded his innocence in the matter. On the basis of above prosecution case, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution established its case for the offence punishable u/s 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, by the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence aforesaid, the appellant has filed this appeal. I have heard Shri Arun Nema, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Dinesh Joshi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State and perused the record of the trial Court. Shri Nema, 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. On the other hand, Shri Dinesh Joshi, learned State Counsel has supported the judgment recorded by the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant as indicated above. He submitted that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant are illegal and incorrect, as such are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, Shri Dinesh Joshi, learned State Counsel has supported the judgment recorded by the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant as indicated above. Durga Bai (PW-3) has stated that on the date of incident, when she was collecting Imli along with Roshni (PW-4), the appellant reached there and asked Roshni to run away. She was picked up by the appellant and was taken below a tree. Appellant pressed her throat, overthrew her and committed rape on her. Blood started oozing from her vagina. She started weeping loudly. appellant ran away from the spot. Mahesh (PW-2), the father of Roshni took her with him from the spot and handed her over to her grand mother Parwati Bai (PW-1). Roshni (PW-4) has also stated that on the date of the incident she was collecting Imli along with Durga near Sheetlamai. A boy came there and picked up Durga Bai and took her near Nala. She went to her mother Kusum Bai and informed her the incident, who, in turn, informed Parwati Bai about the incident. Mahesh (PW-2) has stated that prosecutrix and Roshni Bai were playing outside his house. After some time his daughter came and informed something to her mother. Thereafter, he went to take bath in the Nala where Parwati Bai and her husband Punnalal came searching their grand daughter Durga Bai and he was also requested to search their grand daughter. While searching he found Durga Bai weeping under a tree. He took Durga Bai to her grand mother Parwati Bai and went to Nala for taking bath. Parwati Bai (PW-1) has stated that on the date of incident Kusum Bai, the mother of Roshni informed her that appellant has taken away Durga Bai towards Kiriyaghat Nala. She along with her husband went in search of her grand daughter. Mahesh also met them in the way. As she was a slow mover, Mahesh went ahead of her and brought Durga Bai from the bank of Nala. She saw blood on the clothes of Durga Bai. Durga Bai informed her about the incident. She went to the police station along with her husband, grand daughter Durga Bai and Ravi Jharia and lodged FIR, Ex.P-1. As she was a slow mover, Mahesh went ahead of her and brought Durga Bai from the bank of Nala. She saw blood on the clothes of Durga Bai. Durga Bai informed her about the incident. She went to the police station along with her husband, grand daughter Durga Bai and Ravi Jharia and lodged FIR, Ex.P-1. Radhakishan (PW-5), the elder brother of father of Durga Bai and his wife Sushila Bai (PW-6), Nanhi Bai (PW-7), the mother of the prosecutrix have stated that when they learnt about the incident, they went to the police station, Bargi, where they saw blood on the clothes of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix also narrated incident to them. Dr. Smt. Sharda Mishra (PW-8) has stated that on 3-11-2002 she examined Durga Bai aged about eight years, and found the marks of bruise over her neck and blood stains over her nose. On local examination she also found dried blood stains over the hymen of the prosecutrix. Hymen was torn at 6 O'Clock position. There was a perineal tear. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecutrix being aged about eight years and a child witness, her testimony should not be accepted because there is always a danger in accepting evidence of such witness. She was tutored by her grand mother and her statement cannot be considered to be that of a reliable witness. Learned counsel also submitted that the prosecutrix was not administered oath. A witness who had not been administered oath cannot be trusted wholesale. The contention cannot be accepted. The evidence of prosecutrix Durga Bai is not at variance with the evidence of grown up persons. On a careful scrutiny of her evidence. I find that she is a witness of truth and not a witness of imagination. The evidence of prosecutrix is natural. It cannot be said to be concocted or embellished to any extent. Her evidence cannot be said to be infirm or untrustworthy. Probability factor also renders it worthy of credit. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that Mahesh Bhumia (PW-2), the father of Roshni and Roshni (PW-4) herself have not supported the prosecution case. Mahesh Bhumia has admitted that appellant is his close relative being son of his father's elder brother, therefore, he was interested in welfare of the appellant. His evidence should be considered with a pinch of salt. Mahesh Bhumia has admitted that appellant is his close relative being son of his father's elder brother, therefore, he was interested in welfare of the appellant. His evidence should be considered with a pinch of salt. Mahesh (PW-2) and Roshni (PW-4) have also substantially corroborated the evidence of the prosecutrix. Evidence of prosecutrix has also been corroborated by the evidence of her grand mother and other relatives. 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, the 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. 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 eight years and in any case under twelve years and therefore, the case falls within the purview of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of section 376, Indian Penal Code and the law requires in such cases that punishment should not be awarded less than ten years of 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. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant is hereby maintained. Final Result : Dismissed