JUDGMENT [Per : Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral)] This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.07.2000, passed in Sessions trial No. 92 of 1999, by learned Sessions judge, Pauri Garhwal, whereby appellant Dheeraj Singh has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Heard Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Nandan Arya, Assitt Govenrment Advocate for the State and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Basanti Devi (P.W.1) resident of Village Maulkhandi, Post Banghaar, District Pauri Garhwal, due to her illness, on 18.08.1999, had gone from her husband’s house to her parental house leaving her three children with her husband in the aforesaid village. On 26.08.1999, Guddi (P.W.2) the eldest minor daughter of the complainant came to her and disclosed that on 25.08.1999 and 26.08.1999, her father Dheeraj Singh (accused/appellant) committed rape on her. The minor girl (Guddi) was bleeding from her private parts and she was in pain. On this, Basanti Devi (P.W.1) mother of the victim, got prepared a written report (Ext. A-1) on 27.08.1999, and lodged the same with Naib Tehsildar, Pauri (In the interior hills of Uttarakhand, Certain Revenue Officials are given police powers, under U.P. Government Notification No. 494/VIII-418-16 dated 7th March, 1916). On the basis of said report a check report (Ext. A-7) was prepared by the Naib Tehsildar, Pauri, who made necessary entry in the general diary (copy of which is Ext. A-8). A crime No. 61 of 1999 was registered against accused Dheeraj Singh relating to offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. The victim (P.W.2) was taken by the Investigating Officer to District Female Hospital, where Dr. M. Purohit (P.W.3) medically examined the victim. The Medical Officer found that left labia minora was lacerated. There was swelling in the private part of the victim, on touch it was bleeding. There were signs of vaginal penetration. The medical Officer prepared the medical report (Ext. A-3) for determination of the age, X-ray was advised. On the basis of the X-ray reports it was found that the girl is aged between 11 and 13 years. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet (Ext. There were signs of vaginal penetration. The medical Officer prepared the medical report (Ext. A-3) for determination of the age, X-ray was advised. On the basis of the X-ray reports it was found that the girl is aged between 11 and 13 years. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet (Ext. A-13) against the accused Dheeraj Singh for his trial in respect of offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. 4. The Magistrate, on receipt of charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the court of Sessions, for trial. Learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, after hearing on 29.01.2000, framed charge of offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. against the accused Dheeraj Singh, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, the prosecution got examined P.W.1 Basanti Devi (complainant); P.W.2 Guddi [aged 13 years (victim)]; P.W.3 Dr. M. Purohit (Medical Officer who medically examined the victim); P.W.4 Dr. Arun Kumar (the Radiologist, who after X-ray submitted his report Ext. A-6) and P.W.5 Mansa Ram (Naib Tehsildar, who investigated the crime). The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused/appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in reply to which he alleged the same to be false. At the end, he submitted that his wife and mother-in-law are inimical to him, and they have got him implicated falsely. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. After hearing the parties, the trial court found accused/appellant Dheeraj Singh guilty of charge of offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. After hearing on sentence, the convict was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 29.07.2000, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in Sessions Trials No. 92 of 1999, the convict preferred this appeal from jail. Since, the appellant was not represented through any counsel, Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate, was appointed Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant. 5. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to mention here the P/V examination report prepared by P.W.3 Dr. M. Purohit, after she examined Km. Guddi (daughter of the appellant) on 27.08.1999. The P/V examination report is being reproduced below :- “Laceration on left labia minora, swollen, inflamed, bleed on touch. 5. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to mention here the P/V examination report prepared by P.W.3 Dr. M. Purohit, after she examined Km. Guddi (daughter of the appellant) on 27.08.1999. The P/V examination report is being reproduced below :- “Laceration on left labia minora, swollen, inflamed, bleed on touch. Hymen torned, margins are tender, bleed on touch, swollen, inflamed, vaginal swab taken.” Though, no external injury except above was found by the Medical Officer, she opined there were signs of vaginal penetration present and the injuries (recorded above) were about two days old. She also advised X-ray of elbow and wrist joints for determination of the age of the victim. P.W.3 Dr. M. Purohit submitted her supplementary report on 30th of August 1999, after she received X-ray report from the Radiologist, P.W.4 Dr. Arun Kumar, who prepared his report (Ext. A-6). On the basis of the report of the Radiologist, the two Medical Officers opined that radiological age of the victim was 11-13 years, as the centers of lower ends of ulna and radius were not united to their bones. 6. Now, we come to the oral testimony of the witnesses. P.W.1 Basanti Devi (complainant) who is wife of accused Dheeraj Singh and mother of victim Guddi, has stated on oath that she had four children from her husband Dheeraj Singh (accused/appellant), but eldest son was missing. There were only three children namely, Guddi (victim), Sunil (aged 10 years), youngest daughter (aged 8 years) and the youngest son (aged five months). She has further stated that her parental house and her husband’s house are at a distance of 20 minutes walk. Her parental house is in Pattli and her husband’s house is in Maulkhandi. It is further stated by P.W.1 Basanti Devi that on 18.08.1999, she had gone to her parental house for her treatment, as she was ill. She has clarified that she left her three children with her husband. Narrating the prosecution story further she states that on 26.08.1999, at about 4-5 P.M., Guddi, her minor daughter, came to her. She was looking very helpless and sad. When she enquired from her about her condition the little girl started crying. The witness further states that the victim disclosed her that she was raped by her father on victim disclosed her that she was raped by her father on 25th and 26th of August, 1999. She was looking very helpless and sad. When she enquired from her about her condition the little girl started crying. The witness further states that the victim disclosed her that she was raped by her father on victim disclosed her that she was raped by her father on 25th and 26th of August, 1999. She (Guddi) told her that her father has asked her not to inform about it to her mother. P.W.1 Basanti Devi further states that when she examined her daughter (Guddi) she found that she (Guddi) was bleeding from her private parts. The witness further states that then she went to Maulkhandi, but her husband was not there. Then she went to the Village Pradhan Rameshwari. Rameshwari and her husband Ramesh Chand took the complainant and the victim to Pauri where she scribed report (Ext. A-1) and took her and her daughter (Guddi) to hospital where she (Guddi) was got medically examined. 7. Statement of P.W.2 Guddi (victim), aged 13 years, who was subjected to rape by her own father has corroborated the prosecution story narrated by her mother that she had gone to her parental house on 18th of August. Thereafter, she had narrated horrifying story of 25th and 26th of August against her father, in following words : ßjkr dk le; Fkk igys eq>s tehu ij fyVk fn;k Fkk] NsM+us yxk Fkk HkkbZ cfgu dks ekj dj Hkxk fn;k Fkk] og esjs Åij iM+k Fkk] esjs diM+s mrkj fn;s Fks] mlus dgk fd vkSj diM+s iguus gSa bu diM+ksa dks mrkj ns eSaus diM+s mrkj fn;s Fks] eSaus lHkh diM+s mrkj fn;s Fks] iStkek o lyokj Hkh mrkj fn;s FksA og esjs Åij ysV x;k Fkk mlus viuk dPNk Hkh mrkj fn;k Fkk rc og uaxk gks x;k FkkA esjs is”kkc djus okyh txg esa esjs firk us viuk is”kkc djus okyk Mkyk Fkk ftlls [kwu vk;k Fkk] ftlls esjs is”kkc okyh txg ls [kwu vk;k Fkk vkSj nnZ gqvk Fkk] og fnu esa rhu ckj fd;k FkkAÞ Above testimony of the child is not only natural and corroborated from the statement of her mother, but also from the medical reports Ext. A-2 and Ext. A-3, proved by the medical reports Ext. A-2 and Ext. A-3, proved by the Medical Officer, Dr. M. Purohit (P.W.3). 8. The case of the defence is that due to enmity accused/appellant has been falsely implicated in the crime. A-2 and Ext. A-3, proved by the medical reports Ext. A-2 and Ext. A-3, proved by the Medical Officer, Dr. M. Purohit (P.W.3). 8. The case of the defence is that due to enmity accused/appellant has been falsely implicated in the crime. In reply to question No. 8, recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused had made following statement : ßesjh lkl tojh nsoh o clUrh nsoh eq>ls jaft”k j[krh FkhA eSa [kqn uiqald vkneh gw¡A blh dkj.k eq>s tsy HkstkA izkFkZuk gS fd lR;rk ds fy, esjh MkDVjh eqvkbuk fd;k tk;A uiqald gksus ds dkj.k jaft”k Fkh blfy;s eq>s tsy Hkstk x;kA blls ifgys esjh lkl o iRuh us iz/kku th dks esjs f[kykQ fjiksVZ nh Fkh ftlesa iapk;r cSBkbZ xbZA ftldk iapukek iz/kkuth ds ikl gSAÞ The above defence taken by the accused/appellant, in our opinion, can hardly dent the natural and trustworthy evidence given by his own minor daughter with whom he had no enmity. It is pertinent to mention here that she (victim) was living with her father on the day of the incident. The accused/appellant has attempted to say in his above statement that he is impotent which appears to be false on the face of it as it is not denied that he is not father of the four children from complainant Basanti Devi. 9. On behalf of the appellant, learned Amicus Curiae argued that the testimony of the child witness should not be believed without corroboration as children can be tutored. Had there been no medical evidence as mentioned Ext. A-2 and Ext. A-3, what learned Amicus Curiae has argued could have been accepted in support of the appellant, but the medical reports fully corroborate the testimony of the girl child. 10. It is also pointed out on behalf of the appellant that the girl must have resisted commission of rape by her father and there is no nail scratches on her face as stated by her. We have reassessed the entire evidence on record and we find that above inconsistency is not sufficient to doubt the ring to truth which has come in testimony of the prosecutrix. The trial court has rightly observed that the little child can hardly be able to have protested or resisted successfully against her 47 years old father. We have reassessed the entire evidence on record and we find that above inconsistency is not sufficient to doubt the ring to truth which has come in testimony of the prosecutrix. The trial court has rightly observed that the little child can hardly be able to have protested or resisted successfully against her 47 years old father. She has also stated that when she was subjected to rape her younger siblings were ousted by her father. Having re-examined the entire evidence on record, we do not find any error of law or that of fact committed by the trial court in holding the accused/appellant Dheeraj Singh guilty of offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. We also concur with the sentence awarded by the trial court as to convict does not deserve anything less than the imprisonment for life for commission of rape on her own minor daughter. 11. For the reasons as discussed above, we find no force in this appeal, which is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. The appellant is in jail. The Registry is directed to send the copy of this judgment to the Superintendent of the jail concerned. Lower court record be also sent back to the trial court.