JUDGMENT State is the appellant against the order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused-respondent by the learned Asst.Sessions Judge, Bonai in S.T. No.44/8 of 1990. It reveals from the record and the parties do not dispute that accused was charged for the offence under Section 363 and 376 I.P.C. on the allegation that on 21.03.1989 at about 6 P.M. accused lifted the victim girl, a minor, to the backside of Tensa Guest House and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. Accused denied to the charge and claimed for trial. 2. To substantiate the accusation, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and relied on series of documents, Ext. 1 to 8/1, besides exhibiting material objects, M.O.I. to VII and M.O.I is a pair of chapel. Rest of the material objects are the wearing apparels. Amongst the witnesses, P.W.2 is the victim girl, P.W.1 is the father of the victim, P.W. No.3 is her elder sister, P.Ws. 6 and 7 are two women-co-villagers. They were not the eye-witnesses to the occurrence but according to the prosecution the victim was crying and coming on the road and on being asked narrated to them about the act of rape on her by the accused. P.W. 8 is the doctor, who conducted ossification test and submitted its opinion report, Ext.6 and according to him the age of the victim was between 10 to 14 years on the date of examination P.W.10 is the other doc¬tor, who examined the victim girl and submitted his opinion report, Ext.7. He also examined the accused and submitted the report, Ext.8. P.W.4 is a seizure witnesses. P.W.5 is the nephew of the accused and P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer. 3. In her evidence P.W. 2 narrated that on the date of occurrence in the evening at about 7 P.M. while she was in her house, she heard that her father (P.W.1) was assaulted.Thus, she went to the bus stand to search for her father. In that process, she reached the Jagannath Temple. There she saw the accused and P.W.5. She replied to them that she was in search for her father. Accused percussed “Pakudi” and offered that to her. Thereafter, accused lifted her on his shoulder. She raised hue and cry and P.W.5 fled away. In that process, she reached the Jagannath Temple. There she saw the accused and P.W.5. She replied to them that she was in search for her father. Accused percussed “Pakudi” and offered that to her. Thereafter, accused lifted her on his shoulder. She raised hue and cry and P.W.5 fled away. Accused took her near the Tensa Guest House up to a nala and thereafter removing her garments made her naked and removing his clothing forcibly cohabited with her. Thereafter, accused warned her not to disclose the fact to any one. They together came to the bus stand and therefrom she returned to her house. She informed the incident to her elder sister (P.W. 3). She had also reported this incident to P.W. 7 and thereafter her father (P.W. 1), who lodged the report. One Mukhi Babu (a police constable) caught hold of the accused and took him to the police out-post. She also stated about her being examined medically and her wearing apparels seized. In the cross-examination, she stated that near the bus stand and Jagannath Temple, there are shops which remained open till 9 P.M. and dwelling houses of one ‘Go¬sain’ and others situate and that when she raised hue and cry, none came to her help, she did not narrate the incident to any person present in the bus stand when she returned with the ac¬cused, her uncle came over that spot (bus stand) and the prosecu¬trix left that place for her house, P.W. 3 reported about the incident to her uncle, her father arrived at the police out-post after her arrival there, and she narrated the incident at the out-post but her father lodged the F.I.R. at the P.S. She denied to the suggestion that P.W.1 has foisted a false case against the accused because of previous enmity. P.W.1 stated in his evidence that at about 9 P.M. he returned to the house and could know about the incident from P.W.3, then he proceeded to the out-post with her daughters and reported the incident after ascertaining about the occurrence from P.W.2. That report was the F.I.R. In the cross-examination, he stated that in the police outpost P.W.2 narrated about the incident, which was recorded by P.W.9. He denied to the suggestion that the F.I.R. was lodged by P.W.2. That report was the F.I.R. In the cross-examination, he stated that in the police outpost P.W.2 narrated about the incident, which was recorded by P.W.9. He denied to the suggestion that the F.I.R. was lodged by P.W.2. He also denied to the suggestion that under the influence of liquor on an early occasion the accused and P.W.1 had assaulted each other and because of that enmity he foisted the false case against the accused. P.W.3 stated in her evidence that P.W.2 went to search for her father,she returned and asked for water. P.W. 3 supplied water and after that P.W.2 narrated about the incident of rape and then their uncle Raju arrived there. P.W.1 also narrated the incident to P.W.6, who is related as grand-mother of P.W. 3 and then they went to Tensa out-post. Then she along with her uncle went to the Tensa Out-post and finding absence of police personnel, they returned and subsequently P.W.1 went to the out-post and lodged the report. In the cross-examination she stated that she and her husband lives with P.Ws. 1 and 2. She stated that one Mukhi babu, a police constable, came to their house before P.Ws. 1 and 2 and others went to the outpost to report the incident. That police constable also accompanied them to the police out-post. She further stated that P.W.2 gave state¬ment before the police station and her L.T.I. was taken on that statement. P.W.6 stated in her evidence that she saw P.W.2 was coming running to her house (P.W.6), P.W.2 reported that accused kidnapped and raped her. In the cross-examination, she stated that she stayed with her son-in-law and husband but at the time of narration of the event by P.W.2 to P.W.6 she was in the house of one Sanatan and that house is away from the house of P.W.2. The defence confronted her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the effect that the victim girl reported to her (P.W.6) that accused committed rape on her and that soon after the occurrence victim girl sat on her (P.W.6) Varanda and thereafter victim girl’s uncle, elder sister reached there.She was also confronted with the suggestion that she (P.W.6) came to know about the occurrence from P.W.2. 4. P.W.7 stated in her evidence that she saw P.W.2 going on the road and then she was crying. 4. P.W.7 stated in her evidence that she saw P.W.2 going on the road and then she was crying. She also heard P.W. 2 talk¬ing with P.W.6 but she (P.W.7) could not know the topic under discussion. P.W.8 on the basis of different test conducted opined that the age of the victim girl was between 10 to 15 years. The defence did not challenge that opinion and declined to cross-examine P.W.8. 5. The doctor, P.W.10, stated in his evidence that on 22.03.1989 at 7.30 P.M. on examining the P.W.2, he found :- (i) recent sign of sexual intercourse was seen because hymen was torn. (ii) Hymen was ruptured recently. (iii) She was not habituated to sexual intercourse in the past; (iv) No injury on her breasts, thigh and cheeks and lips and (v) Abrasion 3" x 2" x skin depth on the lumber region-simple in nature and might have been caused by hard and blunt weapon.” The said doctor also opined that on the self-same date he examined the accused and found that he was capable of doing sexual intercourse. There was no injury on the penis and did not find any sign of recent sexual intercourse. In the cross-examination he stated that he did not penetrate his fingers to the vagina of the victim girl to ascertain as to how many fingers were capable of being admitted and did not specifically mentioned in the report about the recent sexual intercourse and that abra¬sion on the lumber region is possibly by fall. He also stated that he did not examine the penis of the accused in erect condi¬tion and there was no sign of sexual intercourse when he examined the accused. 6. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge on analysis of evi¬dence recorded that evidence of P.W.8 is not safe to rely so as to determine the age of the prosecutrix between 10 to 14. Evi¬dence of P.Ws. 3, 6 and 7 are prevaricating in the manner on which the matter was intimated to them by P.W.2 and therefore their evidence is not reliable. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge on analysis of evi¬dence recorded that evidence of P.W.8 is not safe to rely so as to determine the age of the prosecutrix between 10 to 14. Evi¬dence of P.Ws. 3, 6 and 7 are prevaricating in the manner on which the matter was intimated to them by P.W.2 and therefore their evidence is not reliable. P.W.10, the doctor having not conducted the examination by penetrating her finger into victims vagina and not examining the penis of the accused after erection and above all not finding a case of recent sexual intercourse, such evidence is of no assistance to prove the charge and P.W.3 does not appear to be truthful and her evidence does not inspire confidence. Besides that learned Sessions Judge also recorded that “no chemical examination report in this case is forth com¬ing” The totality of the aforesaid analysis made learned Assist¬ant Sessions Judge to grant benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. 7. Learned Standing Counsel argues that not only the aforesaid findings suffer from perversity, inasmuch as, evidence on record was not properly read but also relevant, oral and documentary evidence was withheld from consideration. He further argues that evidence of the prosecutrix was corroborated by the evidence of P.W.10 regarding allegation of rape. Case of the prosecution that she was a minor girl on the date of occurrence was never disputed by the accused.Such fact was deposed by P.W.8, the doctor and even P.W.1 (father of the girl) and P.W.3 (elder sister of the girl) and they were not cross-examined by the accused on the age of the victim and above all on the date of examination of P.W.2 the trial Court assessed her age to be 11 years. Under such circumstance, it appears that the trial Court made out circumstances of non-proof of her minor hood with the object of adding the circumstances in furtherance of the order of acquittal. He also submits that evidence of P.W.2 alone in this case is sufficient to prove the charge of kidnapping and rape. He further argues that it appears from the lower Court record that report of the Senior Scientific Officer of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory was available to indicate that chadi of the victim girl found with large patch of the semen of human origin, but that document was not exhibited. He further argues that it appears from the lower Court record that report of the Senior Scientific Officer of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory was available to indicate that chadi of the victim girl found with large patch of the semen of human origin, but that document was not exhibited. In that respect he does not exclude negligence of the prosecutor, who conducted the case. Learned Standing Counsel argues that even without that document evidence of P.W.2 alone is sufficient to prove the charge and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 are sufficient enough to lend corrobora¬tion to her version together with the evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 10. 8. Learned counsel for the accused-respondent, on the other hand, argues that deposition of P.Ws.1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are not consistent as to in what manner and in what sequence the occurrence was reported by P.W.2 to various persons. Apart from that, after admitting in her evidence that many persons were present when she was lifted and many persons were present in the bus stand area including her uncle when they returned to the bus stand is sufficient enough to falsify the accusation and there¬fore the benefit of doubt granted to the accused be maintained. 9. It is the trite law that in the absence of eyewitness to occurrence of rape, if the evidence of prosecutrix is true and reliable, her testimony alone is sufficient to prove the charge, unless corroborating evidence is glaring and contra-indicative. Medical evidence in such a case cannot be the sole guideline to believe or disbelieve a prosecutrix, inasmuch as, the gap between the occurrence and the time of examination of the victim and the accused results many changes so as to make truthful case a proba¬ble one. Presence of eye-witnesses rarely happens in rape cases. 10. In a case of kidnapping and rape of the present nature age, the prosecutrix is of considerable importance. P.W.8 opined that age of the victim was in between 10 to 14. P.W.2 stated her age to be 11 years. Trial Court assessed her age as 11 years. Even granting allowance of two to three years the age comes to be around 14 by the date of occurrence. Therefore, evidence of P.W.8 is not to be discarded. Accused never challenges about minor-hood of P.W.2. P.W.2 stated her age to be 11 years. Trial Court assessed her age as 11 years. Even granting allowance of two to three years the age comes to be around 14 by the date of occurrence. Therefore, evidence of P.W.8 is not to be discarded. Accused never challenges about minor-hood of P.W.2. He did not deny to the opinion of P.W.8 that victim was in between 10 to 14 years old. Under such circumstance, her age by the date of occurrence can be recorded to be about 14 years and therefore she was minor. 11. Evidence of P.W.2 that she had gone to the bus stand area in search of her father and that accused and P.W.5 were near Jagannath Temple and that accused purchased “Pakudi” and offered her. Such evidence is not denied by the accused. It is the evi¬dence of P.W.6 that while returning, P.W.2 was crying and narrat¬ed to her about the kidnapping and rape being committed on her by the accused. That evidence is not denied. On the other hand, statement of P.W.6 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was confronted to her in that respect. Statement of P.W.3 that on returning to her house P.W.2 reported to her (P.W.3) about the act of kidnapping and rape committed by the accused is also not denied by the accused in course of cross examination. Admittedly, Tensa is an under-developed interior place amidst of hills and forests. Court can take judicial notice of that fact. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bonai should not have abstained from taking judicial notice of that fact. Prosecutrix is an illiterate girl and the status of P.Ws.1, 3, 6 and 7 are not better than that. Some contradictions here and there about the order or the sequence in which the fact was narrated by P.W.2 to those witnesses is of less relevancy. It should be borne in mind that when a child of 12 years old and rustic women were facing cross-examination, some allowance should be given and trifle contradictions should not be construed so rigidly so as to discredit their truthful version. Apart from that, inter se contradictions of P.Ws.3, 6 and 7 about the sequence in which the event was narrated by P.W. No.2 to other witnesses does not take away credibility of P.W.2. Apart from that, inter se contradictions of P.Ws.3, 6 and 7 about the sequence in which the event was narrated by P.W. No.2 to other witnesses does not take away credibility of P.W.2. A Court of Session while conducting a sessions trial should be conscious of its responsibility and to discharge the same dispassionately and impartially by not showing favour to either the accused or the victim, as the case may be. 12. Therefore, after perusal of the evidence on record, this Court finds all the above noted reasons assigned by the trial Court are irrational logic culminated into incorrect inter¬pretation of evidence so as to give premium to the accused who was charged for kidnapping and committing rape on a minor girl. On the other hand, evidence led by the prosecution is sufficient enough on record and particularly the evidence of P.W.2 read with P.W.10 that accused is guilty of offence of kidnapping and rape. Therefore, order of acquittal is set aside and the accused is convicted for the said two offences. 13. At this stage, learned counsel for the accused-respondent submits that though order was passed for bail during pendency of the appeal but accused/respondent did not avail the same and that accused has already suffered imprisonment for 10 years, therefore, alternative punishment may be imposed instead of imprisonment for life. Learned Standing Counsel has no objec¬tion to that submission. 14. Regard being had to the aforesaid facts and submission, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under Section 376 IPC. In view of that no separate sentence is awarded for the offence under Section 363 IPC. If the accused has already remained inside the jail for the aforesaid period, then that period be set off as against the sentence awarded and accordingly the release order be issued, provided his detention in jail custody is not required in connec¬tion with any other case. The Government Appeal is accordingly allowed. Appeal allowed.