Honble SHARMA, J.–The appellant (hereinafter described as `accused) has filed this appeal impugning the judgment dated April 26, 1999 of the learned Special Judge SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases Dausa whereby the accused was convicted and sentenced as under:- U/s. 376 IPC read with Section 3(2)(5) SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short `SC & ST Act):- To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-. in default to further suffer one year Simple Imprisonment. (2). The prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that informant Chameli Devi on February 6, 1998 submitted written report at Police Station Mahuwa with the averments that while her daughter Jamna Bai aged eight years in the preceding night coming back after attending a marriage, the accused picked her to his house and committed rape on her. The informant saw profused bleeding on the private parts of Jamna Bai and her undergarments were stained with blood. The police station registered a case under Section 376 IPC and 3 of SC & ST Act and investigation commenced. The victim Jamna Bai was medically examined by Dr. Prathvi Raj Meena (PW. 7) and as per injury report (Ex.P-7) following injuries were found on her person:- ``Vagina-lacerated wound margin irregular clotted blood present. 1cm x 1/2 cm 1/2 x cm posteriorly duration of injury 0-2 hours. Hymen-ruptured clotted blood present. (1) Abrasion clotted blood present 3cm x 1/2 cm upon left hip. (2) Abrasion clotted blood present 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm upon Rt. hip. (3) Abrasion clotted blood present 3mm x 3mm upon left hip. As per X-ray report the age of the victim was between 10-12 years. The blood stained clothes and vaginal swab of the victim were found stained with semen by the FSL. The accused was arrested and got examined medically. vide medical report (Ex.P-8) the accused was found potent. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed and the case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Dausa. Charges under Sections 376 IPC and Sec. 3 of SC & ST Act was framed against the accused. who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 11 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., the accused claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Charges under Sections 376 IPC and Sec. 3 of SC & ST Act was framed against the accused. who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 11 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., the accused claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. The learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated herein above. (3). We have heard rival submissions and weighed the material on record. (4). The first contention of learned Amicus Curiae is that absence of injuries on the male organ of the accused goes to show that he was not the person who committed intercourse with the victim. (5). Having tested the submissions with the evidence adduced by the prosecution we find that the victim Jamna (PW. 8) in her deposition at the trial stated that around 11 PM while she was returning home after witnessing a marriage procession, accused picked her up and took her near the house of one Roshan, he then removed her underwear, got her laid down on her shawl and entered his organ into her vagina. Her underwear and Ghaghri were stained in blood. She narrated this incident to her sister, mother and grandmother. Chameli (PW.1), Panchu Ram (PW.3), Dhanni (PW.6) and Asha (PW.10) corroborated the testimony of Jamna. Dr Prathvi Raj Meena (PW.7), as already noticed, examined Jamna and found her hymen ruptured and various other injuries on her private parts. In these circumstances the absence of injuries on the male organ of the accused is not fatal. There is no inflexible axiom of law which lays down that the absence of injuries on the male organ of the accused would always be fatal to the prosecution case and would discredit the evidence of prosecutrxi otherwise found to the reliable. The presence of injuries on the male organ may no doubt lead support to the prosecution case, but their absence is not always fatal. It is now well settled that the evidence by the victim of sexual assasults stands at per with the evidence of an injured witness just as a witness who has sustained the injury is the best witness in the sense that the victim is least likely to exculpate the real offender. (6). The offence of rape must be dealt with as the gravest crime against the human dignity. (6). The offence of rape must be dealt with as the gravest crime against the human dignity. The physical and mental suffering which the victim endures as a result of rape should form a vital ingredient. Victims life style will be completely disrupted by the rape crimes. The offence of rape leaves her with feelings of humiliation, degradation and guilt. Rape is an experience which shakes the foundation of life of victim. Since the accused in the instant case committed rape with a girl, who was less than twelve years of age and belonged to Scheduled Caste, was rightly convicted and sentenced in view of section 376(2)(f) IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine. (7). We find not merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed.