( 1 ) TAKING exception to his conviction for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and six months, imposed upon him, the appellant Laxman Narayan Jadhav has filed this appeal. ( 2 ) FACTS which gave rise to conviction of the present appellant are as under. On 23-4-2002 in the field of one Kisan Kakar in village Bibi, district buldhana, work of construction of temple was going on. Asha Mire and Sunita gaikwad were doing some work there. The appellant and one Bablu enquired about the work. At about 1. 00 p. m. Asha and Sunita stopped the work for taking lunch. While they were taking lunch, a deaf and dumb girl "y" came there and had lunch with them. "y" went to bring water to a well, about 60 ft. away, but the appellant and Bablu, who were present near the well, took "y" to a cattle- shed thereby. When Asha and Sunita went to the well to fetch water, they noticed "y" and the accused in the cattleshed while Bablu was standing near the well. "y" came out running and weeping. The frock, which "y" was wearing, was stained with blood. The accused too came out and asked Asha and Sunita to wash clothes of "y" which they refused to do in spite of threats. ( 3 ) RELATIONS of "y" noticed uneasiness of "y", therefore, made enquiry with her. By making gestures she conveyed that she had been subjected to sexual assault. Ys relative Bhimrao lodged report, on which an offence was registered and investigation commenced. In the course of investigation, the appellant as well as Bablu were arrested and on completion of the investigation, while charge- sheet was sent against the appellant before the learned Judicial Magistrate First class, since Bablu was a juvenile offender, his case was referred to the Juvenile court. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class committed the case to the Court of sessions at Buldhana. ( 4 ) THE 4th Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Buldhana charged the appellant of committing rape upon "y". The appellant pleaded not guilty and hence was put on trial. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class committed the case to the Court of sessions at Buldhana. ( 4 ) THE 4th Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Buldhana charged the appellant of committing rape upon "y". The appellant pleaded not guilty and hence was put on trial. In its attempt to bring home guilt of accused, the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses and two witnesses were examined as court witnesses. Upon consideration of the evidence tendered before him, the learned Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Buldhana held the charge of rape to be proved and, therefore, proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred this appeal. ( 5 ) I have heard Advocate Mrs. Gaykee, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. With the help of both the learned counsel, I have gone through the evidence on record to examine, whether conviction recorded by the learned Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge deserved to be set aside. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the victim herself was deaf and dumb and could not effectively communicate before the Court. She could not be subjected to effective cross-examination and, therefore, her version about the incident is grossly inadequate to hold the appellant guilty. In this case, apart from victim, Asha, one of the girls who had first spotted the accused as well as the victim, has been examined as PW1. Victims uncle Bhimrao, who gave the report vide Exh.-24 was examined as PW4. After receipt of the report, police had sent the victim for medical examination which was conducted by PW6 Dr. Mrs. Thorat. She stated that on 24-4-2002, she examined prosecutrix and found that there was a fresh hymen tear. There was no evidence of injury over thighies or region around the neck. Dr. Mrs. Thorat found that age of the girl was ten to twelve years according to radiological examination. Dr. Thorat took sample of blood, pubic hair and also vaginal swab of the victim. Dr. Mrs. Thorat found victims blood group to be "o". The evidence of Dr. Mrs. Thorat would show that, prosecutrix, a girl of ten to twelve years in age, had been subjected to forceful sexual intercourse as indicated by fresh hymen tear. The question is whether the appellant was the person, who perpetrated the sexual assault. Dr. Mrs. Thorat found victims blood group to be "o". The evidence of Dr. Mrs. Thorat would show that, prosecutrix, a girl of ten to twelve years in age, had been subjected to forceful sexual intercourse as indicated by fresh hymen tear. The question is whether the appellant was the person, who perpetrated the sexual assault. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of Dr. Mrs. Thorat, which shows absence of injuries over thighies or neck, would make it probable that the appellant was being falsely implicated. For that purpose, she relied on the decision in Balwan Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in 1994 cri. LJ. 2810. In that case, the charge was not one of rape, but attempt to commit rape, and in that case, absence of other injuries weighed on the mind of the Court. In the instant case, the charge is one of rape, which is apparent from the fact that there was fresh hymen tear. Therefore, the decision relied on by the learned counsel is unhelpful. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that while blood group of the victim was detected to be "o" by PW 6 Dr. Mrs. Thorat, when the samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory by the investigating officer, the report of the Laboratory dated 2-12-2003 shows that the blood group of the victim was "a" and not "o" and that there were stains of blood group "a" on the skirt as well as underwear of the victim which had been seized. Otherwise, the report of the Laboratory returned inconclusive findings on all other exhibits. The inability of Laboratory to state about the group of blood of the appellant and the juvenile offender, though the samples had been sent at one and the same time is surprising and, therefore, unexhibited report of Laboratory need not result in negativing the conclusion drawn by Dr. Mrs. Thorat, who has deposed before the court and proved her medical certificate. It is also pertinent to note that the defence has also declined to cross-examine Dr. Mrs. Thorat, implying that her words had been accepted. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of Calcutta high Court in Shyamraj vs. The State reported in 7995 Crilj. It is also pertinent to note that the defence has also declined to cross-examine Dr. Mrs. Thorat, implying that her words had been accepted. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of Calcutta high Court in Shyamraj vs. The State reported in 7995 Crilj. 3363, where the court acquitted the accused finding evidence of prosecution untrustworthy, particularly because chemical analysis report of blood stain did not depict the blood of human origin. Here, the report of the chemical analysis itself may not be relied on for the reasons which I have just now mentioned. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that relying on the report of the Laboratory which shows that no semen was detected on the skirt or underwear of the victim or even vaginal swab, which had been referred to the laboratory. She submitted that when two persons were alleged to have had intercourse with the victim, the absence of semen or spermatozoa would be indicative of false charge being levied. ( 11 ) RELYING on the decision of this Court in Deoraj Deju Suvarna and etc. vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1994 Cri. LJ. 3602, the learned counsel submitted that absence of splinters inside the body of deceased in the reported decision led the Court to observe that the case was concocted. Likewise in the present case, the absence of spermatozoa and semen in the person of victim should lead to the like conclusion. It is to be borne in mind that while splinters in the dead body may not be easily removable, it would be the first impulse of guardians of any young girl being ravished to ensure that she does not carry the consequences of such incident. Therefore, since the victim was examined on 24-4-2002, whereas the incident had taken place on 23-4-2002 the absence of spermatozoa or semen was inconsequential, and cannot result in rejecting the testimony of the victim and the eye witness, if it is otherwise reasonable. ( 12 ) IN this case, victim being deaf and dumb was obviously unable to communicate effectively. All the same, she conveyed to the complainants wife shalu, to whom she had come as a guest, that she had pain in her stomach and then PW5 Shalu came to notice that there was an injury on the victims private part. ( 12 ) IN this case, victim being deaf and dumb was obviously unable to communicate effectively. All the same, she conveyed to the complainants wife shalu, to whom she had come as a guest, that she had pain in her stomach and then PW5 Shalu came to notice that there was an injury on the victims private part. Complainant Bhimrao, examined as PW 4, stated that he learnt about the incident on his wife being acquainted of the incident by the prosecutrix. He stated that prosecutrix had taken him to the spot of incident on the next day. He stated one Athawales son told him that the appellant had raped the victim. Bhimrao states that, thereafter, he went to the house of accused along with prosecutrix. Prosecutrix caught hold of the hand of the accused indicating that he was the same person. PW4 Bhimrao stated that, thereafter, when he made enquiry, the appellant touched his feet, indicating that the appellant was seeking to be pardoned. It was suggested to the witness that he was falsely roping in the appellant in order to save one Shrimant, who is the son of driver of ex-MLA jagraoji Chavan, but he denied that suggestion. Shrimant seems to be the juvenile offender. There was no question of saving Shrimant by implicating the appellant because since Shrimant was juvenile offender, he was unlikely to attract any punishment. No enmity is shown to be in existence between the appellant and bhimrao in order to propel Bhimrao to give false report. ( 13 ) THE police seems to have recorded statement of the prosecutrix with the help of interpreter PW 3 Vasanti. Vasanti is a teacher in the Deaf and Dumb school, Buldhana. The statement recorded through mediation of Vasanti at Exh.-22 cannot, however, be a substantive piece of evidence since, it would be mere previous statement. ( 14 ) PW2 Deepak, stated that on the day of incident, he met the appellant and one boy, who was with the appellant, and that on his asking them as to where they were going; they told that an offence had taken place at their hands, stating that they had committed rape of a girl. In the cross-examination, the witness stated that there was no occasion for him to talk with the accused. He however, denied that he was deposing falsely at the instance of ex-MLA Jagrao Chavan. In the cross-examination, the witness stated that there was no occasion for him to talk with the accused. He however, denied that he was deposing falsely at the instance of ex-MLA Jagrao Chavan. First, it must be noticed that Jagrao Chavan would have no interest in the matter directly, since the other miscreant is stated to be a son of driver of Jagrao Chavan not close enough to warrant Jagrao Chavan to take interest in the matter. Secondly, as already pointed out, since the boy was a juvenile offender, there was no reason to rope in someone, in order to save a person, who had no need to be saved. Though, it is true that that there would ordinarily be no occasion for an accused to disclose to such a person as to what he had done, the narration may not be entirely improbable, since strange are the ways of human mind. All the same, the evidence of PW2 Deepak may be excluded from consideration to infer involvement of the appellant in the Crime. ( 15 ) THE victim herself had been examined with the help of interpreter, court Witness No. 1. Court Witness No. 1 Purushottam Gange, stated to have been serving as teacher in deaf and dumb school. He stated that he understands the sign language of deaf and dumb since he is a teacher in the said school for 19 years. He stated that he would truly and faithfully interpret whatever the deaf and dumb person may communicate. Upon this, the victim was examined by the court. In examination-in-chief, the victim stated by signs that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her. However, interpreter was not in a position to interpret the questions or answers given in the cross-examination which were, whether the victim had come with the mother; how many times the victim had come to the Court; whether there are disputes between the victims mother and the accused; whether the victims mother had asked the victim to tell the name of the accused; was it the first time of sexual intercourse with her in life or whether the signs of rape was taught to her by her mother. ( 16 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submits that failure of the victim to answer these questions or the failure of interpreter to interpret the questions and answers may indicate that only the tutored part of the testimony was received in the Court, which was not subjected to the test of cross-examination, therefore, it deserved to be rejected. ( 17 ) THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that this contention itself deserves to be rejected because of the questions put in the crossexamination. He submitted that it was sought to be suggested to the witness that she named the accused at the instance of her mother because of any dispute between the accused and mother of the prosecutrix, when no such suggestion was ever made to any other witness. It may be seen that the appellant is resident of bibi, whereas, the victim is a girl who had come as a guest at the house of complainant at Bibi at the time of incident. Her parents are resident of village nandkheda near Deoulgaon Raja as per report Exh.-24. Thus, there is no question of enmity of the victims mother with the appellant. Therefore, whether the victim was able to answer the questions put in the cross-examination, the questions, themselves, indicate that they had no bearing on the facts deposed to by the victim. ( 18 ) THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor wonders as to whether it would be appropriate to allow an assault on a deaf and dumb victim to go unpunished simply because the victim could not effectively communicate. He submits that it is the responsibility of the society to take special care in respect of such victims and to use all possible means to detect the wrong doers and punish them. In this case, the indication by victim in the examination-in-chief pointing out to the appellant as perpetrator of sexual assault on her does not deserve to be rejected. ( 19 ) APART from this, the prosecution has examined PW 1 Asha, who had first noticed the accused taking the victim to cattle shed. Her version squarely implicates the appellant in the sexual assault on the victim. There is absolutely no reason why Asha should be disbelieved. It was suggested to Asha that there was a quarrel between her father and the accused on account of fetching water before the incident, but Asha denied the suggestion. Her version squarely implicates the appellant in the sexual assault on the victim. There is absolutely no reason why Asha should be disbelieved. It was suggested to Asha that there was a quarrel between her father and the accused on account of fetching water before the incident, but Asha denied the suggestion. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Asha had stated that one Sunita was also with her and in the peculiar circumstances of the case, it was necessary for the prosecution to examine Sunita. She submits that non-examination of Sunita had deprived the defence of chance to test the testimony of the only two witnesses, who could have effectively conveyed to the Court as to what exactly had happened. ( 20 ) AS rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine too many witnesses on the same point when testimony of even one of them would be enough. Since, there is no infirmity in the evidence of Asha, which lends credence to the communication of victim in the course of her examination through interpreter, it cannot said that the learned trial judge erred in holding the appellant guilty. ( 21 ) THE learned counsel relied on the judgment in Mohinder Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2004) 12 SCC 311 . It is submitted that since there were glaring discrepancies in the evidence, the conviction of the appellant was liable to be set aside. In my view, the evidence does not disclose any glaring discrepancies. The decision in Mohinder Singhs case cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case because it was a case of murder where motive suggested on the part of accused was extremely weak and stale. In an offence of rape, it is not necessary to have motive. It is clear that taking undue advantage of the fact that the victim was not in a position to communicate, she being deaf and dumb, the appellant seems to have rushed to satisfy his lust. Therefore, the decision in Mohinder Singhs case would not help the appellant. In view of this the appeal has no merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.