Judgment :- 1. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged judgment and order passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur on 15.1.2008 whereby the appellant was found guilty and upon conviction, has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. He was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for an offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under: Prosecutrix Girija, 14 years old girl, resided at Ghuggus Faiel, Ballarsha at her uncle’s house (appellant). On 16.5.2007 at about 13.30 hours in the afternoon, her uncle (appellant) lifted her up, took her in the room in the house. When the prosecutrix tried to raise shouts, he tied dupatta around her mouth, made her lie down on cot and inserted his penis in her private part (vagina). Thus, according to prosecutrix, her uncle had raped her, eight days earlier also, taking advantage of the fact that her parents were no more living, threatening her that if she disclosed the fact to anybody, then he would kill her. Due to fear, the earlier incident was not disclosed, but later, when the appellant committed rape again, the prosecutrix disclosed the incident to police. Offence was registered as Crime No. 134/2007 at Police Station, Ballarsha under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajura who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The charge was framed (exhibit 10) to which appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses. Prosecutrix was examined as P.W. 5. Her paternal aunt Tijiyabai was examined as P.W. 1. Prosecutrix was taken to Rural Hospital, Ballarsha for medical examination. FIR was recorded by P.W. 4 Head Constable Tejram. Dr Subhash (PW 8) medically examined the prosecutrix upon requisition. Dr Barapatre (PW 11) had issued ossification test report. 5. Appellant denied the case pleading innocence and claiming that he was falsely implicated. 6. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court ordered conviction, as aforesaid. 7. FIR was recorded by P.W. 4 Head Constable Tejram. Dr Subhash (PW 8) medically examined the prosecutrix upon requisition. Dr Barapatre (PW 11) had issued ossification test report. 5. Appellant denied the case pleading innocence and claiming that he was falsely implicated. 6. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court ordered conviction, as aforesaid. 7. In support of the appeal, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the trial Court erred to believe in the evidence led by the prosecution. Age of the prosecutrix was not proved beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused, none other than paternal uncle of the prosecutrix, was falsely implicated. It is further submitted that conduct of the prosecutrix was suspicious to lodge complaint and she did not like parental control of the accused who was her paternal uncle. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the trial Court had failed to notice the inherent weakness of the prosecution case that the accused was paternal uncle of the prosecutrix and could not have committed rape upon her; nor he would have allowed any other person to commit rape upon her. It is further submitted that there was no sufficient corroboration to believe the prosecutrix and therefore, the trial Court ought to have acquitted the appellant as there was no legal proof except suspicion against appellant. Learned Advocate contended that suspicion, howsoever strong may be, cannot take the place of legal proof. In support of his submission, learned counsel for appellant made reference to the following rulings:- (i). Krishna Soma Raut v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2008 All MR (Cri) 656 (Bombay HC). (ii). Suresh Govinda Nagdeve v. State of Masharashtra reported in 2008 (1) Bom CR (Cri) 847. (iii). State of Maharashtra v. Subhash Haribhau reported in 2008 (1) Bom CR (Cri) 388. 8. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that when two views may be possible from the evidence on record, the view which is favourable to the accused is preferred. Therefore, the accused ought to have been acquitted. Further, according to learned Advocate for the appellant, the trial Court ought to have considered that there was no legal and unimpeachable evidence of forcible rape upon prosecutrix. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that evidence of prosecutrix was trustworthy and reliable. Therefore, the accused ought to have been acquitted. Further, according to learned Advocate for the appellant, the trial Court ought to have considered that there was no legal and unimpeachable evidence of forcible rape upon prosecutrix. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that evidence of prosecutrix was trustworthy and reliable. The prosecutrix (PW 7) deposed that the accused, her parental uncle, had asked her on the day of incident at about 1.30 p.m. to bring water and he caught hold of her hand and tied her mouth by dupatta and tied her both hands and mouth by dupatta. He tied her both hands on back with cloth and then removed her brown colour salwar and raped upon her and threatened prosecutrix not to disclose to anybody, otherwise he would kill and bury her. He had again raped on the next Wednesday in the noon time. Accused had gagged her mouth with clothes and tied her hands near the cot and committed rape. According to learned APP, the trial Court had appreciated the entire evidence on record threadbare and arrived at only conclusion which was logically available from evidence. According to him, on the basis of evidence on record, heinous crime rape upon minor niece by appellant-uncle was established beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor made reference to – (i). Madanlal v. State of MP reported in 1997 (2) Crimes 210 . (ii). State of UP v. Pappu @ Yunus and another reported in AIR 2005 SC 1248 . (iii). State of MP v. Dayal Saha reported in AIR 2005 SC 3750. 10. The legal position is well settled. In the ruling in the State of Rajasthan v. Omprakash reported in (2002) 5 SCC 745 , the Apex Court observed that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of victim. A woman or girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime, but is victim of another person’s lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. The Apex Court also observed that the inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual cases is so vital. 11. I have gone through the rulings cited in the light of submissions advanced before me. The Apex Court also observed that the inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual cases is so vital. 11. I have gone through the rulings cited in the light of submissions advanced before me. It is well-settled that a prosecutrix, a victim of rape is not to be treated as an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. Her evidence stands on higher pedestal than even an injured witness in the criminal trial. Because injured witness had received injury which was only physical, while injury caused to the victim in rape is physical as well as psychological and emotional. The trial Court can, therefore, act upon uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix and when it may find difficult to accept such evidence at its face value, it may search for rest of the evidence which may lend assurance to the testimony by prosecutrix. Assurance short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice would do. 12. The trial Court appears to have considered the legal position fairly and impartially in the background of facts. The appellant who had vice of drinking, indulged in inhuman act of rape upon his own niece who had on the same day lodged complaint about it. The trial Court has rightly observed thus – “In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, though it is seen that she has attained the age of discretion, yet it does not extend the benefit to the accused looking to the relationship of the accused with the prosecutrix and occurrence of the offence which has been admittedly taken place within four walls of the house of accused where prosecutrix resides with the accused being his niece..” It appears clear from the evidence of prosecutrix Girija and Tijiabai (PW 1) that the incident of rape on the prosecutrix Girija by the appellant did occur and was reported without any inordinate delay. The immediate response of prosecution witness Tijiabai (PW 1), paternal aunt of prosecutrix to go and question her brother, the appellant as to why he has done such evil act upon his niece and slapping him, is most natural response considering that Girija had no parents and she was minor girl, living under the shelter of her close relatives from paternal side. Girija had no reason to falsely implicate the appellant; her own paternal uncle in such serious accusations of rape. Had the prosecutrix Girija consented for the act of rape by her uncle, there was no necessity for her to narrate it to others including her paternal aunt and she would have closed chapter after enjoying the act of sex. Her evidence in the present case is found reliable, trustworthy and well corroborated in the background of facts and circumstances. Combined effect of all the proved facts taken together leads to only one conclusion towards guilt of the appellant. There was no reason why his own real sister would come forward to depose falsely against appellant. Plea of false implication is, therefore, out of question. Learned trial Judge has considered pros and cons of the matter to arrive at conclusion of conviction. The conviction and sentence in the background of facts is appropriate and well-founded. There is no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment and order. The impugned judgment and order is well-founded on facts and legal position which is well settled, as above and does not require any interference. 13. In the result, appeal is dismissed.