JUDGMENT - BRAHME P.S., J.: - By this appeal, appellant-accused Mahesh s/o Mansaram Patil has challenged the judgment and order of his conviction for the offences punishable under sections 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentences to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- In default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months respectively. 2. Prosecutrix Dhaneshwari, who was the daughter of complainant Bahurabai, r/o. Karodi, was aged about 12 years studying in 5th class on the date of occurrence which took place on 10-2-2001. That day, she after returning from school, went to play along with her friend Lata to the school play ground. At that time, one boy aged about 20 years, having black complexion, asked both the girls to accompany him behind the temple for making garland of flowers. Prosecutrix came home and after seeking permission of her mother and as the boy promised to pay Rs. 25/- accompanied him. They were taken behind the temple in the bushy jungle. That boy cleaned surface of the ground and forcibly made prosecutrix Dhaneshwari to lie down and removed her clothes. After removing his clothes, he asked Lata to sit by the side and then, at once he ravished Dhaneshwari under the threat that if she makes any noise or inform anybody he would kill her. After she was ravished, that boy forcibly brought both of them towards nala and again forcibly withdrew the underwear of Dhaneshwari and washed it in the water. Then, he asked both the girls to go away saying that he would go to bring money for them. Dhaneshwari could not walk. She felt giddiness and ultimately fell down behind the temple. Lata went to the house of Dhaneshwari and informed her mother. Consequently, Dhaneshwari, who was found sleeping behind the temple, was brought home. When inquired with her, she disclosed about the incident to her mother. Her mother Baburabai saw the private part of Dhaneshwari and found that she was bleeding. So, her mother suspected that her daughter Dhaneshwari was ravished sexually. Consequently, Dhaneshwari, who was found sleeping behind the temple, was brought home. When inquired with her, she disclosed about the incident to her mother. Her mother Baburabai saw the private part of Dhaneshwari and found that she was bleeding. So, her mother suspected that her daughter Dhaneshwari was ravished sexually. It happened at about 4.30 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. Bahurabai approached the Police Station and lodged complaint on the same day at about 18.40 hours alleging that her daughter Dhaneshwari was sexually assaulted and rape was committed on her. 3. On the report lodged by Bahurabai , offence was registered vide crime No. 36 of 2001, under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Dhaneshwari was forwarded and referred to Mayo Hospital, Nagpur for medical examination. The Medical Officer examined her and opined that there was evidence of forcible intercourse and decision of laparotomy was taken and performed. Dhaneshwari was admitted in the hospital as an indoor patient for about 10 to 12 days. In the process of investigation, the statement of witnesses namely Lata, who was with Dhaneshwari and happened to watch the entire incident and episode, was recorded, so also the statement of Fulwatibai, who happened to see Dhaneshwari and Lata in the afternoon along with said black complexion boy. Thus, the name of appellant-accused Mahesh came to be disclosed as he was last seen with Dhaneshwari and Lata. He was arrested on 11-2-2001. It was found that he had sustained injury on his private part, as also on his person and therefore, he was forwarded for medical examination. The Medical Officer, who examined him, opined that multiple abrasions were present and were fresh on pubic region of accused Mahesh. There was also abrasion on his penis, so also, stigma of semen was present on his pubic hair. The Medical Officer further found that the pubic hair were curved and mutilated. The Medical Officer found that Mahesh was competent to perform sexual intercourse. At the time when he was examined, his semen sample, blood sample, pubic hair sample and cliping of nail were obtained and handed over to the Chemical Analyser for examination. Likewise, his clothes consisting of underwear, pant, shirt etc. were seized. Similarly, the clothes of prosecutrix Dhaneshwari consisting of nylon panty, blouse, meedy skirt were seized. Her blood sample was obtained and it was sealed and seized under panchnama. Likewise, his clothes consisting of underwear, pant, shirt etc. were seized. Similarly, the clothes of prosecutrix Dhaneshwari consisting of nylon panty, blouse, meedy skirt were seized. Her blood sample was obtained and it was sealed and seized under panchnama. Vaginal swab, pubic hair sample of Dhaneshwari were taken and sent to police in sealed condition. The entire property that came to be seized consisting of blood sample, semen sample, sample of pubic hair of prosecutrix and accused and clothes were sent to the Chemical Analyser. 4. In the course of investigation, identification of appellant-accused Mahesh by victim Dhaneshwari and eye-witnesses Lata and Fulwati, who had last seen the appellant with both the girls, was done in the identification parade which was held on 15-3-2001 in the Central Jail and the witnesses have identified the appellant. It was revealed that the incident had taken place on 10-2-2001 at about 4.00 p.m. and report thereof was made on the same day at about 6.00 p.m. by mother of the prosecutrix. The Medical Officer who examined the victim has opined that there was evidence of forceful intercourse. The Medical Officer who examined the appellant found that he had an injury on his private part and therefore, he opined that the appellant might have had sexual intercourse. After receiving report of Chemical Analyser and completing investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant-accused in the 6th Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur, who by an order date 28-3-2001, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Nagpur for trial. 6. Before the Special Judge, the appellant-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. His defence was that of total denial. When he was examined, after the prosecution evidence was over, under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he contented that because of his activities of theft in the nearby locality, people have bothered and to get rid of his activities, all the witnesses including the police have implicated him in the crime and filed false charge-sheet against him. He also came up with the defence that because once he had assaulted father of Dhaneshwari for non-payment of money, he has been involved and implicated in this case due to the enmity. He prayed for acquittal. 6. He also came up with the defence that because once he had assaulted father of Dhaneshwari for non-payment of money, he has been involved and implicated in this case due to the enmity. He prayed for acquittal. 6. At the trial, prosecution examined in all fourteen witnesses including prosecutrix Dhaneshwari (P.W. 3) her mother Bahurabai (P.W. 4), last seen witness Fulwati (P.W. 5), witness Lata (P.W. 6), Dr. Deepti (P.W. 11) who examined and operated prosecutrix Dhaneshwari, Dr. Manjushri (P.W. 12) Medical Officer, Dr. Durgadas (P.W. 1) who examined appellant Mahesh, Naib Tahsildar Ramesh (P.W. 2) who held and conducted identification parade, Motilal (P.W. 7) who acted as a panch and in whose presence vaginal swab, pubic hair samples came to be seized, Ramgulal (P.W. 9) a panch witness in whose presence appellant Mahesh was arrested under arrest panchnama (Exh. 32), Investigating Officer Maheshwar (P.W. 13) and P.S.I. Mohan (P.W. 14). The documentary evidence on which reliance has been placed by prosecution consists of medical report (Exh. 8) in respect of accused Mahesh, so also medical report (Exh. 11), Exh. 15 and 16 memorandum and panchnama in respect of identification parade conducted by the Executive Magistrate respectively, Exh. 20 the report lodged by Bahurai, seizure memo (Exh. 25) by which vaginal swab and pubic hair sample of victim came to be seized, Exh. 27 seizure memo of pubic hair sample, blood sample, semen sample and nail cliping sample of appellant, Exh. 28 the seizure memo of clothes of victim, Exh. 29 seizure memo of blood sample of Dhaneshwari and Exh. 31 the seizure memo in respect of clothes of the appellant, Medical Reports of prosecutrix Dhaneshwari Exhs. 38, 39, 42 and 44, the first information report (Exh. 46) and the reports of Chemical Analyser Exhs. 53, 54 and 55. 7. 28 the seizure memo of clothes of victim, Exh. 29 seizure memo of blood sample of Dhaneshwari and Exh. 31 the seizure memo in respect of clothes of the appellant, Medical Reports of prosecutrix Dhaneshwari Exhs. 38, 39, 42 and 44, the first information report (Exh. 46) and the reports of Chemical Analyser Exhs. 53, 54 and 55. 7. The trial Court, accepting the evidence on the record, more particularly the testimony of prosecutrix Dhaneshwari with well cogent support by witnesses Lata and medical evidence, as also corroboration by the evidence of Bahurabai consistent with the report she lodged immediately and the findings by the Medical Officer who examined Dhaneshwari and appellant Mahesh, came to the conclusion that the appellant-accused has committed sexual assault on the prosecutrix, who was admittedly a minor girl and it was also found that the prosecution had proved that the appellant-accused has tried to destroy the evidence by getting the clothes of the prosecutrix washed in water and found the appellant-accused guilty of the offences under sections 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently, he came to be convicted and sentenced as stated above. Hence, this appeal. 8. Mr. M.R. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant-accused vehemently contended that the trial Court committed an error in accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses including prosecutrix Dhaneshwari and Lata inasmuch as there are material discrepancies in their evidence and on probability point of view, their evidence does not at all inspire confidence. He submitted that identity of the appellant is not conclusively established as the person who committed rape on the prosecutrix. He, therefore, urged that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home guilt of the accused beyond every shadow of doubt and so the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 9. As against that, Mr. Lanjewar, learned A.P.P., after taking me through the evidence and judgment of the trial Court, submitted that, on the evidence on record, prosecution has established that prosecutrix was ravished. He pointed out from the medical evidence that there was tear to the private part of prosecutrix to such an extent that besides there being profused bleeding, the doctor was required to perform operation and for that purpose, the prosecutrix was required to be admitted in the hospital for 10 to 12 days. He pointed out from the medical evidence that there was tear to the private part of prosecutrix to such an extent that besides there being profused bleeding, the doctor was required to perform operation and for that purpose, the prosecutrix was required to be admitted in the hospital for 10 to 12 days. The evidence of Medical Officer who operated and examined the prosecutrix clinchingly goes to show that the prosecutrix was ravished brutally. The evidence on identification is also believable and acceptable which establishes identity of the appellant as the culprit who committed rape in all possible brutal manner on a minor girl. The learned Counsel, therefore, urged that the appeal merits no consideration and so, the same should be dismissed. 9. Before we consider the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties, it is very self-eloquent to note that the medical evidence in this case, which has gone unchallenged, infact candidly goes to show that prosecutrix Dhaneshwari, admittedly a minor girl studying in 5th Std., was sexually ravished. It is not disputed that Bahurabai, mother of the prosecutrix, after having heard from her daughter Dhaneshwari and Lata about sexual assault on the prosecutrix and after having herself verified on seeing the private part of her daughter finding that she was bleeding, immediately took her to the Police Station and after having lodged the report, she was taken to the Medical Officer in the Mayo Hospital. It is not disputed that Dhaneshwari was examined by Doctor Manjushree w/o Ravi Waikar (P.W. 12). On her examination, she found as under: "3rd degree perineal tear present upto anus. Inner margine not seen. Patient unco-operative for further examination. Therefore, reassessment of patient under anesthesia in lithotomy position was planned. Under general anethesia in lithotomy position the tear was extending upto posterial fornix. Rent over posterior fornix was present. Opening the pouch of doglous, omentum was seen protruding in vagina. Decision for laparotomy taken. Under general anesthesia abdomen was opened and rent identified and stitched. Abdomen closed. Perinial tear repaired." 10. Doctor Manjushree (P.W. 12) has opined in her evidence that upon examination, it was found that the evidence of forcible intercourse was present. This evidence and positive finding recorded by the Medica Officer in the report (Exh. 39) was unchallenged. Dr. Under general anesthesia abdomen was opened and rent identified and stitched. Abdomen closed. Perinial tear repaired." 10. Doctor Manjushree (P.W. 12) has opined in her evidence that upon examination, it was found that the evidence of forcible intercourse was present. This evidence and positive finding recorded by the Medica Officer in the report (Exh. 39) was unchallenged. Dr. Manjushri (P.W. 12), in her evidence, also deposed about examination of the prosecutrix and finding of evidence of third degree perenial tear extending upto pouch of douglous and accordingly, issued certificate (Exh. 44). She has also opined that there was evidence of forceful intercourse. The evidence of Medical Officer undoubtedly goes to show that there was violent penetration in the vagina and as a result thereof, the victim was required to undergo major operation. It is pertinent to note that the damage caused to the private part of the victim was so major that the injury could be seen by the Medical Officer with naked eyes. There is absolutely nothing in the cross-examination by the defence as to what and under what circumstances other wise the rape injuries are suffered by the victim were possible. 11. It is not disputed that appellant Mahesh was examined by Dr. Durgadas (P.W. 1) on 12-12-2001 and found multiple abrasions present and fresh abrasions were found on pubic region and also on penis and stigma of semen was present on pubic hair and pubic hairs were curved and multilated and clustered and he opined that the accused was capable of performing sexual intercourse and accordingly, he issued certificates Exhs. 8 and 11. The findings recorded by Medical Officer Dr. Durgadas (P.W. 1) have not been disputed by the defence, so far as the injuries suffered by the appellant on his private part and finding of stigma of semen on his pubic hair is concerned. The trial Court has accepted that evidence of Dr. Durgadas with the findings specifically given by him and found that the fact that the appellant was examined immediately on 12-12-2001 after his arrest, lends assurance to the claim of prosecution that victim Dhaneshwari was ravished. In this context, the positive finding of injury on the penis of appellant with abrasions on his penis region lends support to the allegation that the appellant had sexual intercourse recently prior to his arrest. In this context, the positive finding of injury on the penis of appellant with abrasions on his penis region lends support to the allegation that the appellant had sexual intercourse recently prior to his arrest. The appellant has not offered any explanation as to presence of injury on his penis and abrasions as fresh as being noticed by the Medical Officer. The appellant was found capable of performing sexual intercourse. Therefore, in all probabilities, this finding recorded by the Medical Officer on examining the appellant takes him very close to the performance of act of forceful intercourse with the victim. 12. Witness Bahurabai w/o Shitaldas Sahu (P.W. 4) in her evidence has categorically stated as to how her daughter Dhaneshwari came to be sexually assaulted. It is no doubt true that whatever she disclosed in the report lodged by her to the Police Station immediately was on the basis of what she heard from the prosecutrix her daughter and Lata. In addition to that, she herself verified, on seeing the private part of the prosecutrix and to her surprise, she found that her daughter Dhaneshwari was bleeding and therefore, she thought it fit to take her to the hospital immediately and to make report to the Police Station. The findings recorded by the doctor about examination of the victim certainly lends assurance to what witness Bahurabai has stated in her evidence before the Court. The trial Court has observed very rightly that the conduct exhibited by Bahurabai as a mother of prosecutrix in first herself verifying, by seeing the private part of her daughter, the injury she has suffered and then reporting the matter to the police without spending any time and waiting for any one and then taking her to the Medical Officer for examination and treatment, was as natural as it could be. It is pertinent to note that as the mother of prosecutrix took steps without wasting time, not only the life of prosecutrix was saved, but it facilitated to get the evidence of sexual harassment caused to the prosecutrix. It is pertinent to note that the evidence of Bahurabai on the factum of sexual assault on her daughter, her findings on seeing the private part of her daughter and reporting the matter to the police, have gone unchallenged by the defence. It is pertinent to note that the evidence of Bahurabai on the factum of sexual assault on her daughter, her findings on seeing the private part of her daughter and reporting the matter to the police, have gone unchallenged by the defence. Therefore, that evidence of Bahurabai certainly lends assurance to the version of the prosecutrix and witness Lata which is further strengthened by the Medical Officer. The trial Court has rightly accepted the evidence of Bahurabai. Her evidence certainly inspires confidence. She is found to be a witness of truth. 13. The prosecutrix in her evidence has given detail account by deposing that she knows the accused who was present in the Court and then narrated the incident that took place on 10-2-2001. She disclosed that she had been called by the accused and along with her friend Lata, she went with him on the backside of temple. She has also disclosed that her mother refused the permission, but then the accused insisted them and forced to follow him and then despite their resistance and obstruction, he brought them behind the temple in bushy jungle and asked Lata to sit and then after cleaning the surface, removed his cloths and her (prosecutrix's) clothes, inserted, in the words of Dhaneshwari, his organ of urine in her organ of urine and she pained and upon that, he threatened to kill by crushing her neck and also threatened Lata when she was weeping and he slapped Dhaneshwari and threatened not to tell anybody. She has disclosed that after she was ravished, the appellant took them to the nearby nala and asked her to withdraw panty and he himself washed said panty so as to make disappear the evidence. In her evidence, she has stated that she disclosed to her mother all account in detail on the basis of which her mother lodged report to the Police Station. In her evidence, it has come that after she was discharged from the hospital, she was brought to the Central Jail where she identified the appellant as the same boy who ravished her and committed rape on her. Witness Dhaneshwari was subjected to cross-examination by the defence, but as could be seen from the tenor of cross-examination on material particulars, her evidence remained undisturbed. Witness Dhaneshwari was subjected to cross-examination by the defence, but as could be seen from the tenor of cross-examination on material particulars, her evidence remained undisturbed. What is significant is that there was no specific denial to the witness Dhaneshwari that on the day and time of occurrence she was not ravished sexually. It is significant to note that when Lata went to the house of Dhaneshwari and informed her mother, her mother along with Lata came to the place behind the temple where they found that Lata was lying on the ground having fell down. When she was brought home immediately, her mother, on examining the person of prosecutrix Dhaneshwari, found that there was bleeding. The medical evidence clinchingly goes to show positive finding of sexual assault on Dhaneshwari. Therefore, there is reason to say that the evidence of prosecutrix Dhaneshwari, though she was a minor girl, inspires confidence and there is no hesitation in holding that she has disclosed true and correct facts about sexual assault. 14. Similarly, there is evidence of witness Lata who has categorically stated about sexual assault on her by appellant. Though the learned Counsel for the appellant-accused submitted that the evidence of prosecutrix, her mother and Lata was not congent, consistent and reliable, on appreciation of evidence. I have found that the submission made by the learned Counsel was without any substance. Prosecution has clinchingly established that the victim was ravished at the time and place as stated by the witnesses. 15. It has come in the evidence of prosecutrix Dhaneshwari (P.W. 3), witness Lata (P.W. 6) and witness Fulwati (P.W. 5) that at the time of identification parade held in the Central Jail, they identified the appellant. Witness Fulwati was one of the witnesses who had seen Dhaneshwari and Lata going with black complexion boy in the afternoon and she has identified the appellant as the same person with whom the girls Dhaneshwari and Lata were going. There is absolutely no evidence to discard evidence of independent witness Fulwati (P.W. 5). She has categorically submitted to the cross-examination by the defence, but nothing has been brought in her evidence to make a dint in her testimony. There is absolutely no evidence to discard evidence of independent witness Fulwati (P.W. 5). She has categorically submitted to the cross-examination by the defence, but nothing has been brought in her evidence to make a dint in her testimony. The factum of identification of the appellant by these witnesses is further established by prosecution by adducing evidence of witness Naib Tahsildar Ramesh s/o. Bhikuji Puri (P.W. 2), who has stated in his evidence about the manner in which the identification parade was conducted and also what precaution he took while conducting the identification parade. His evidence candidly goes to show that the witnesses have identified the appellant in the test identification parade. He has been very specific in his evidence to highlight that prosecutrix Dhaneshwari identified the accused within a moment, while witness Lata identified him within two minutes and witness Fulwati identified the accused within one minute. Witnesses Lata and Dhaneshwari identified the appellant pointing out the finger towards him and at once saying that he was the same boy who did the act of sexual harassment on victim Dhaneshwari. There was absolutely no reason for these witnesses to give false evidence against the appellant. It is pertinent to note that though there was disclosure by Dhaneshwari immediately to her mother and when Dhaneshwari was taken to the Police Station, where her mother lodged the report and it was disclosed in detail in the report about sexual assault on Dhaneshwari, the name of culprit was not disclosed. All that was disclosed was that a boy of black complexion ravished to the victim. As stated by the trial Court in his judgment rightly, this has significance in the context that, had it been really intended by the mother of prosecutrix to implicate the appellant falsely, it was very easy for her to mention in the report that the person who sexually assaulted Dhaneshwari was the accused Mahesh. In my opinion, the plea of false implication taken by the appellant-accused falls to the ground on this ground itself. In this context, the evidence of witness Fulwati (P.W. 5), who has last seen the victim with the appellant following him towards the temple side and when later on in identification parade the appellant was identified as the same person, her evidence makes clinching that the person who committed rape on Dhaneshwari was none else than the appellant himself. In this context, the evidence of witness Fulwati (P.W. 5), who has last seen the victim with the appellant following him towards the temple side and when later on in identification parade the appellant was identified as the same person, her evidence makes clinching that the person who committed rape on Dhaneshwari was none else than the appellant himself. The trial Court was absolutely right in saying that witness Fulwati being an independent witness, her evidence inspires confidence and there is no reason to discard her evidence. Therefore, accepting the evidence of witnesses on identification, unerrenty it has to be said that appellant-accused and the accused was the only culprit who performed sexual intercourse and ravished the victim. Consequently, accepting the evidence of Lata and prosecutrix Dhaneshwari, it is established that it was the appellant who further did the act of washing clothes/underwear of the prosecutrix in water so as to make disappear the evidence. 16. In this context, the findings in the report of Chemical Analyser (Exh. 55) in respect of clothes of the prosecutrix are self eloquent. The report shows that on article 3 (jangia) and article 4 there were stains of blood in the middle and lower portion which appears to be washed. At the same time. Blood detected on articles 3 and 4 and article 9, which was panty of the appellant, was human. Therefore, the trial Court was right in holding the appellant guilty for committing the offence of rape on the prosecutrix and also for having caused the evidence of offence committed to disappear. 17. In the result, I do not find any merit and substance in the appeal. The findings recorded by the trial Court on conviction and sentence against the appellant-accused deserves to be confirmed. There is no room absolutely to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----