JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 30.8.1987 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar in Sessions Case No. 62/1986 whereby accused-appellant-Bhagat Singh has been convicted u/s. 376/511 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.It arises in the following circumstances : 1. PW-3 Parvati accompanied by his father lodged a verbal report in the Police Station, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar on 27.7.1986 at 8.15 p.m., which was reduced in writing as Ex.P/3 by PW-6 Modi Ram, ASI, stating inter alia therein that when the she-goats belonging to them were left for grazing in the morning did not return till 12 noon, she went for search of them towards the nursery and reached near the nursery at 12.50 noon. At that time, her parents had gone out to manufacture bricks (they being labourers). On calling by the accused, she went near him, who took her in his lap, taken her a little away from there near the kikar trees and laid her on the earth there. The accused then pulled down the underwear worn by her upto the knees and also striped himself. He became necked, lifted her and put her on his thighs, and then tried to insert his penis into her vagina which pained. When she started crying, accused slapped her and shut her mouth by putting his hand on it and started rubbing his penis over her vagina. The accused while indulging himself in the aforesaid acts also pressed her breasts and on ejaculation freed her from his clutches. He then threatened her for not to disclose the incident to anyone, else she would be killed. Thereafter, she returned home and narrated the entire incident to her father PW-2 Roopa Ram. They made search of the accused in the vicinity but could not find him. 2. On the basis of the above oral report (Ex.P/3), case No. 180/1986 was registered u/s. 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After usual investigation, challan was submitted in the Court of Magistrate, who committed it for trial. The learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides, framed charge u/s. 376/511 IPC. Accused denied the charge and claimed trial. 3. After usual investigation, challan was submitted in the Court of Magistrate, who committed it for trial. The learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides, framed charge u/s. 376/511 IPC. Accused denied the charge and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses and in documentary evidence tendered 7 documents and in defence two documents have been tendered. 4. After close of the prosecution evidence, in the statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. accused denied the prosecution case and claimed himself to be innocent. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case for the reason that he was not permitting them to graze the cattle in the nursery. In defence, two witnesses have been examined. 5. The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides, vide its judgment and order dated 31.8.1987 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated hereinabove. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.8.1987 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar in Sessions. Case No. 62/1986, the accused-appellant has preferred the present appeal. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant and also carefully examined the material available on record. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that the learned trial Judge has not properly examined the medical evidence which does not support the prosecution case. According to the learned counsel, the testimony of the prosecutrix is required to be corroborated by the medical evidence and in absence thereof the prosecution case cannot succeed. It has next been contended that the statement of prosecutrix recorded in the Court is full of contravention and the contradictions are of significant nature, therefore, on the basis of the statement of prosecutrix conviction of the accused-appellant is not liable to be sustained. It has further been contended that prosecutrix has stated that FIR was lodged in the morning whereas it has been lodged in the evening and this important aspect of the matter has not at all been considered in its correct perspective. The learned counsel submitted further that there is variance in the statement of the father of the prosecutrix PW-2 Roopa Ram and the statement of prosecutrix, therefore, this creates a doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. The learned counsel submitted further that there is variance in the statement of the father of the prosecutrix PW-2 Roopa Ram and the statement of prosecutrix, therefore, this creates a doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. The learned counsel has contended further that there is delay of 8 to 10 hrs in lodging the FIR and this delay is fatal and only on this count the prosecution case fails. In the last, it has been argued that it was on account of enmity that a case has been foisted against him as the accused was not permitting the prosecutrix or his family members to graze their she-goats near the nursery and the appellant has explained this position in the statement recorded u/s. 313 of the Cr.P.C. and further by adducing evidence in his defence of DW-1 Munshi Ram and DW-2 Premchand Bansal. According to the learned counsel, in the affidavit of PW-2 it has come that the case has been falsely foisted against the accused. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment and order dated 31.8.1987 passed by the learned trial Judge. It has been contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the single testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient for recording conviction provided it inspires confidence. The learned Public Prosecutor in the last submitted that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and the affidavit Ex.D/1 of PW-2 Roopa Ram is of no significance as nothing has been asked from prosecutrix about this affidavit. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, this affidavit shows that the accused tried to temper with the prosecution witnesses. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made before me and carefully perused the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court. 6. Before proceeding further it will be useful to examine the law laid own by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts regarding appreciation of evidence in such matters.On appreciation of the evidence : 7. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made before me and carefully perused the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court. 6. Before proceeding further it will be useful to examine the law laid own by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts regarding appreciation of evidence in such matters.On appreciation of the evidence : 7. In the case of Narayan Iranna Potkanthi v. State of Maharashtra, 1994 Cr.L.J. 1752 , it has been observed by the Bombay High Court while appreciating the evidence of a child witness as under : "The reading of her deposition, particularly the Marathi version thereof makes one to believe that she was -able to narrate in a consistent manner, how she was handled or mishandled on that day and how she reached to the occurrence in question. We have, therefore, no reason to entertain doubt of intellectual capacity of the witness nor have any reason to suppose that the girl was narrating something that was not true or, that she was induced or influenced to tell before the Court something which was untrue." 8. In the cases of Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey & Anr., (1992) 3 SCC 204 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there are series of decisions to the effect that even in cases wherein there is lack of oral corroboration to that of a prosecutrix, a conviction can be safely recorded, provided the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity, and the `probabilities factor' does not render it unworthy of credence, and that as a general rule, corroboration cannot be insisted upon, except from the medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. It has further been held in this authority in paras No. 34 & 35 that merely because the inexperienced medical officer has opined that it was an attempt to commit rape, probably on the ground that there was no sign of complete penetration, we are not inclined to accept PW-4's legal opinion as to the nature of the offence committed by the respondent. A medical witness called in as an expert to assist the Court is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the medical officer is really of an advisory character given on the basis of the symptoms found on examination. A medical witness called in as an expert to assist the Court is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the medical officer is really of an advisory character given on the basis of the symptoms found on examination. The expert witness is expected to put before the Court all materials inclusive of the data which induced him to come to the conclusion and enlighten the Court on the technical aspect of the case by explaining the terms of science so that the Court although, not an expert may form its own judgment on those materials after giving-due regard to the expert's opinion because once the expert's opinion is accepted, it is not the opinion of the medical officer but of the Court. 9. In para No. 37 of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been observed as under: "We feel that it would be quite appropriate, in this context, to reproduce the opinion expressly by Modi in Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Twenty-first Edition) at page 369 which reads thus: "Thus to constitute the offence of rape it is not necessary that there should be complete penetration of penis with emission of semen and rupture of hymen. Partial penetration of the penis within the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda with or without emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration is quite sufficient for the purpose of the law. It is therefore quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains. In such a case the medical officer should mention the negative facts in his report, but should not give his opinion that no rape had been committed. Rape is crime and not a medical condition. Rape is a legal term and not a diagnosis to be made by the medical officer treating the victim. The only statement that can be made by the medical office is that there is evidence of recent sexual activity. Whether the rape has occurred or not is a legal conclusion not a medical one." 10. Rape is a legal term and not a diagnosis to be made by the medical officer treating the victim. The only statement that can be made by the medical office is that there is evidence of recent sexual activity. Whether the rape has occurred or not is a legal conclusion not a medical one." 10. Again at page 226 of the said decision, it has been observed that before parting with the judgment, with deep concern, we may point out that though all sexual assaults on female children are not reported and do not come to light yet there is an alarming and shocking increase of sexual offences committed on children. This is due to the reasons that children are ignorant of the act of rape and are not able to offer resistance and become easy prey for lusty brutes who display the unscrupulous, deceitful and insidious art of luring female children and young girls. Therefore, such offenders who are menace to the civilised society should be mercilessly and inexorably punished in the severest terms. 11. In the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in relation to appreciation of the evidence as under:- (1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. (2) Ordinarily, it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties, therefore, cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. (3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. (4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by the or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape-recorder. (4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by the or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape-recorder. (5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess-work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. (6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which takes place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. (7) A witness though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the Court atmosphere and the pie ring cross-examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him. Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment. Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses, therefore, cannot be annexed with undue importance. More so when the all important `probabilities factor' echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses.It is now time to tackle the pivotal issue as regards the need for insisting on corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix in sex offence. This Court, in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan , has declared that corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. This Court, in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan , has declared that corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. The utterance of the Court in Rameshwar may be replayed, across the time-gap of three decades which have whistled past, in the inimitable voice of Vivian Bose, J. who spoke for the Court: "The rule, which according to the cases has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstance make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the judge ..... The only rule of law is that this rule of prudence must be present to the mind of the judge or the jury as the case may be and be understood and appreciated by him or them. There is no rule of practice that there must, in every case, be corroboration before a conviction can be allowed to stand." 12. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745 , it has been observed that the evidence of the child is required to be evaluated carefully as the child may be swayed by what others may tell him or her as the child is an easy prey to tutoring. Wisdom requires that the evidence of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it relied on. It has further been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under : "Child rape cases are cases of perverse lust for sex where even innocent children are not spared in pursuit of sexual pleasure. There cannot be anything more obscene than this. It is a crime against humanity. Many such cases are not even brought to the light because of the social stigma attached thereto. According to some surveys, there has been a steep rise in child rape cases. Children need special care and protection. In such cases, responsibility on the shoulders of the Courts is more onerous so as to provide proper legal protection to these children. Their physical and mental immobility call for such protection. Children are the natural resource of our country. They are the country's future. Hope of tomorrow rests on them. Children need special care and protection. In such cases, responsibility on the shoulders of the Courts is more onerous so as to provide proper legal protection to these children. Their physical and mental immobility call for such protection. Children are the natural resource of our country. They are the country's future. Hope of tomorrow rests on them. In our country, a girl child is in a very vulnerable position and one of the modes of her exploitation is rape besides other modes of sexual abuse. These factors point towards a different approach required to be adopted. The overturning of a well-considered and well-analysed judgment of the trial Court on grounds like non-examination of other witnesses, when the case against the respondent otherwise stood established beyond any reasonable doubt was not called for. The minor contradiction of recovery of one or two underwears was wholly insignificant." 13. In the case of Harpal Singh & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 361 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under : "Mr. Hardy laid emphasis on the circumstances that no injury was detected on the private parts of the girl and that she was found to have been used to sexual intercourse and argued that it was a case of sexual intercourse by consent. This argument will be of no avail to the appellants if once it is proved that the girl was below 16 years of age, because in that case the question of consent becomes wholly irrelevant." 14. In the case of Visveswaran v. State , 2003 Cr.L.J. 2548 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed : "... the cases are required to be dealt with utmost sensitivity, Courts have to show greater responsibility when trying an accused on the charge of rape. In such cases, the broader probabilities are required to be examined and the Courts are not to get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies which are not of substantial character. The evidence is required to be appreciated having regard to the background of the entire case and not in isolation. The ground realities are to be kept in view. It is also required to be kept in view that every defective investigation need not necessarily result in the acquittal. In defective investigation, the only requirement is of extra caution by Courts while evaluating evidence. The ground realities are to be kept in view. It is also required to be kept in view that every defective investigation need not necessarily result in the acquittal. In defective investigation, the only requirement is of extra caution by Courts while evaluating evidence. It would not be just to acquit the accused solely as a result of defective investigation. Any deficiency or irregularity in investigation need not necessarily lead to rejection of the case of prosecution when it is otherwise proved." On Delay in Lodging of First Information Report 15. In the case of Narayan Iranna Potkanthi (supra), while examining the matter on delay it has been observed as under : "It was contended in the context of the first information report that, though the incident had taken place on 5.1.1990, the incident was reported at the policb station only on 6.1.1990 and that too, as late as at about 3.30 p.m. True it is that there was some delay in lodging the First Information Report, but, this delay has been properly explained, both by Gangabai and Gangadhar (PW-1). PW-5, Gangabai was an illiterate woman and it appears from her evidence that on account of the shock sustained by her due to the sexual violence meted out to her child, she had broken in tears immediately. Once can imagine how she must have taken some time to take some decisionn ir. the matter." 16. In the case of Kali Charan v. The State (Delhi Administration), 1995 Cr.L.J. 663 , the Hon'ble Delhi High Court while considering the matter of delay has observed as under : "It is a matter of common experience that in our country, people are quite hesitant in reporting such offences to the police in majority of cases primarily to save honour of the family and the prosecutrix and in small number of cases as and when these cases are reported to the police, they do so after considerable hesitation and long deliberations. In this view of the matter often there is delay in lodging the FIR. The prosecution version cannot be thrown out only on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report, otherwise in some cases it may lead to serious miscarriage of justice." 17. In this view of the matter often there is delay in lodging the FIR. The prosecution version cannot be thrown out only on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report, otherwise in some cases it may lead to serious miscarriage of justice." 17. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745 , it has been held that there should be proper explanation of inordinate delay. In this case, there was delay of 26 hours in lodging of first information report fully explained by the prosecution, therefore, it has been observed as under : "As regards the contention regarding the delay in lodging the FIR, the real question is about the explanation for the delay. It is not at all unnatural for the family members to await the arrival of the elders in the family when an offence of this nature is committed before taking a decision to lodge a report with the police. The reputation and prestige of the family and the career and life of a young child is involved in such cases." 18. In the case of Harpal Singh & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1981 SC 361 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that occurrence according Lo the prosecutrix, took place on the night intervening the 20th and 21.8.1972. The first information report was lodged on 31.8.1972. The complainant had given reasonable explanation for lodging it after ten days of the occurrence. She stated that as honour of the family was involved, its members had to decide whether to take the matter to the Court or not. It is not uncommon that such considerations delay action on the part of the near relations of a young girl who is raped. 19. Keeping in mind the principles laid down regarding appreciation of the evidence in the cases of rape of a child witness, now I propose to examine the evidence led by the prosecution in the case.PW-3 Kumari Parvati is the prosecutrix in the present case. She was examined by the trial Court on 25.3.1987. Before recording her statement, the Court satisfied itself regarding her competency to understand as to what she was going to depose. She has stated that before recording of her statement in the Court about 2-3 months ago, she had gone for the search of her she-goats (cattle) near the nursery. She was examined by the trial Court on 25.3.1987. Before recording her statement, the Court satisfied itself regarding her competency to understand as to what she was going to depose. She has stated that before recording of her statement in the Court about 2-3 months ago, she had gone for the search of her she-goats (cattle) near the nursery. Accused present in the Court met her there and asked her to follow him as her mother was standing nearby that place. The prosecutrix refused to accompany the accused. The accused then gave slaps and took her near the kikar trees and thereafter put her on his thighs and tried to insert his penis in to her vagina, rubbed his penis over the vagina. After some time, he released her and told not to disclose the incident to anybody. She, thereafter went her home and after arrival of her father and mother at home, she narrated the entire incident to them. She has also stated that the police was reported the matter and the incident was narrated to the police and she had put her thumb impression on the report Ex.P/3. The police inspected the site and prepared site plan and also seized and sealed her underwear. In the cross-examination of this witness, she has stated that she was ignorant about compromise talks which took place between the accused and her father. On a suggestion that in fact her she-goats entered in the nursery, as such accused gave slaps to her, she answered in negative but stated that she was ofcourse given slaps by the accused. She has denied the suggestion that accused was implicated in this case falsely for the reason that she and her parents were not being permitted by the accused to graze their she-goats in or near the nursery. In cross-examination, other questions were regarding time of incident, as to who were the persons residing near the nursery, as to the manner of search made of accused and regarding certain omissions made by her in the police statement. A question was also asked regarding the time of lodging the FIR Ex.P/3 in the police station. The prosecutrix has stated that the FIR was lodged in the morning and not in the evening. 20. A question was also asked regarding the time of lodging the FIR Ex.P/3 in the police station. The prosecutrix has stated that the FIR was lodged in the morning and not in the evening. 20. The statement of this witness has to be examined carefully as she is a child witness and the entire case of the prosecution depends upon her testimony. Except her stating that FIR Ex.P/3 was lodged in the morning, on other material particulars she has supported the prosecution version such as the incident had taken place, the accused forcibly took her near kikar trees and pulled her underwear upto the knees and also pulled his Niiar and therefore tried to insert penis into her vagina. The law laid down by the Apex Court in various pronouncements regarding appreciation of evidence of the prosecutrix is that even in the absence of corroboration, if the statement of prosecutrix appears to be trustworthy then conviction can safely be based on the single testimony of the prosecutrix. In the case of Viseswaran (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the Courts are required to take precautions while examining the evidence of a prosecutrix child witness and any deficiency or irregularly in investigation need not necessarily lead to rejection of the case of the prosecution when it is otherwise proved. 21. The other evident in this case may now be seen. 22. PW-1 Dr. Kailash Sharma has examined the prosecutrix and also medically examined the accused. This witness has stated that on 27.7.1986 at about 9.30 p.m. prosecutrix was examined by him. The doctor in his report has noted that congestion of labia minora and vaginal orifice is there with slight swelling. This witness has also examined the accused and found that he was fully competent for sexual inter-course. The witness has prepared Ex.P/1,, the medical examination report in relation to prosecutrix and Ex.P/2 is the medical examination report of accused-Bhagat Singh. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that the injuries found in Ex.P/1 could be self-inflicted. 23. The statement of prosecutrix Parvati and the statement of Dr. The witness has prepared Ex.P/1,, the medical examination report in relation to prosecutrix and Ex.P/2 is the medical examination report of accused-Bhagat Singh. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that the injuries found in Ex.P/1 could be self-inflicted. 23. The statement of prosecutrix Parvati and the statement of Dr. Kailash Sharma, when read together, proves the version of the prosecution because it finds corroboration from the medical evidence that there was swelling in the vagina of the prosecutrix and simply on the basis of the opinion of doctor that such an injury could be self-inflicted would not be sufficient to discard the testimony of PW-3 prosecutrix since the accused as he alleges that he had not permitted her to graze the she-goats near the nursery then she and her father would go to the extent to lodge a false case of rape against the accused without carrying for the future of the girl and the society. 24. The father of prosecutrix PW-2 Roopa Ram has also been examined in the case. This witness has deposed in the Court that when her daughter had gone to collect her she-goats near the nursery, accused was found there and he called his daughter. The accused forcibly took her daughter near the kikar trees and there he became necked and her daughter's underwear was also removed and she was undressed. Thereafter, accused put his daughter on his thighs and did some bad work. The witness has stated that the incident was narrated to him by his daughter. He has further stated that report was lodged in the police station about the incident, his daughter was medically examined and the police prepared site plan etc. In the cross-examination of this witness, the suggestion put was that their she-goats entered in the nursery on the alleged date of incident and at that time he was also present alongwith the prosecutrix there was denied. It has also been suggested that accused has been falsely implicated in the matter as the accused was not permitting them to graze their she-goats in the nursery, was denied. This witness was confronted with a document typed on five rupees non judicial stamp and verified by the notary public. It has also been suggested that accused has been falsely implicated in the matter as the accused was not permitting them to graze their she-goats in the nursery, was denied. This witness was confronted with a document typed on five rupees non judicial stamp and verified by the notary public. The affidavit is alleged to be of PW-2 Roopa Ram wherein a mention has been made that 15 to 16 days before the incident while he was taking with him kikar wood sticks, he was caught and at that time quarrel took place. It has also been mentioned in the affidavit that prosecutrix was also with her father and the accused has been implicated in the matter falsely.As stated earlier, that in such matters the testimony of the prosecutrix is decisive factor to prove the guilt of the accused. In the present case Ex.D/1 affidavit of PW-2 is not of any significance particularly when no question in that relation has been put to the prosecutrix in the cross-examination. PW-2 Roopa Ram has not admitted his signatures on the affidavit Ex.D/1 when shown to him. A lengthy cross-examination has been addressed to PW-2 Roopa Ram but in my humble opinion it is not of much significance for the simple reason that as regards the incident is concerned, the relevant evidence is of the prosecutrix. Affidavit Ex.D/1 in fact proves otherwise that the father of the prosecutrix was approached in relation to the incident. In my considered opinion, the affidavit Ex.D/1 submitted during the course of trial is not of any significance and sufficient to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix. The defence evidence is in relation to the affidavit Ex.D/1 of PW-2 Roopa Ram, father of the prosecutrix. Roopa Ram has denied to have put his signatures on Ex.D/1. Further as discussed above, the affidavit Ex.D/1 is of no consequence in the present case, therefore, the evidence produced in defence by the accused does not discredit the testimony of prosecutrix. 25. I have examined the matter thoroughly and I am convinced that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the matter and correctly reached to the conclusion that the accused was responsible for the charge of committing attempt of rape on PW-3 Parvati rape in view of the evidence of the prosecutrix and the medical evidence. 25. I have examined the matter thoroughly and I am convinced that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the matter and correctly reached to the conclusion that the accused was responsible for the charge of committing attempt of rape on PW-3 Parvati rape in view of the evidence of the prosecutrix and the medical evidence. There appears no reason to differ from the findings of guilt recorded by the trial Court. 26. In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 27. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The accused is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. The learned trial Court is directed to take steps for arresting the accused to serve out the remaining sentence.Appeal dismissed. *******