JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. This criminal reference has been preferred under Section 30 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 for confirmation of sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- handed down on the convict by the Judgment and order dated 30-8-2007 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Eastern Zone, Namsal, Arunachal Pradesh convicting the accused, Babulal Kimsim under Section 376, IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 10 (ten) years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, of payment of fine to undergo further term of simple imprisonment for 1 (one) month. 2. This Court by an order dated 6-1-2009, since none appeared on behalf of the convict-appellant, appointed Mr. P. K. Tiwari, learned Counsel as amicus curiae to assist this Court. 3. We have heard Mr. N. Lowang, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh and Mr. P. K. Tiwari, learned amicus curiae, appearing on behalf of the convict. 4. Mr. Lowang, learned P. P. submits that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the convict by adducing sufficient, reliable and cogent evidence and the learned trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the convict and as such, the said conviction and sentence may be confirmed by this Court. Mr. Lowang, learned P.P., taking us through the evidence of P.W. 2, Miss Pinki Kimsin, the victim girl submits that the evidence of victim girl is consistent, cogent and reliable besides being supported by medical evidence and corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 1, Smti Amrity Rai, mother of the victim girl. 5. The prosecution was set in motion on receipt of a written FIR lodged by P.W. 1, Smti Amrity Rai by the O.C., P.S., Roing, on 8-10-2002 complaining that her husband, Shri Babulal Kimsim, raped their minor daughter, Miss Pinki Kimsim, aged about 10 years on 7-10-2002 at about 1200 hrs during her absence. The police registered a case being Roing P.S. Case No. 89/02 under Section 376 of the IPC. The police registered a case being Roing P.S. Case No. 89/02 under Section 376 of the IPC. The I.O. visited the place of occurrence and prepared a rough sketch map of the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of some witnesses and forwarded the victim girl to the district hospital at Roing for medical examination and also to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Roing along with her mother for recording the statement under Section 164, Cr. P.C. The I.O. arrested the accused Babulal Kimsim on 4-11-2002 and produced him before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Roing and also forwarded him to the district hospital at Roing for medical examination. 6. On completion of the investigation, the I.O. filed the charge-sheet under Section 376, IPC against the accused person. The charge was read over and explained by the learned trial Court to the accused in the language he could understand. The charge was framed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley District under Section 376, IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined in all 05 witnesses including the victim girl while the defence examined none. After the charge was framed, the matter was transferred to the Court of the Additional District and Session Judge, Fast Track Court, Eastern Zone, Namsai for trial. 7. P.W. 1, Smti Amrity Rai, is the wife of the accused and mother of the victim girl, who lodged the FIR. She deposed that her accused husband raped his own daughter on 7-10-2002 and she came to know about the incident on 8-10-2002 as the victim girl disclosed her about the same, She went to the Police Station with her daughter and lodged the FIR. The O.C. recorded her statement and also the state of her daughter. To a question put by the Court, P.W. 1, mother of the victim girl, deposed that her daughter told her that the accused did not allow her to even go to school or to play with her sisters. The accused went out for some time and came back before 12 O'clock, while the victim girl was playing outside and then he called her inside the house and raped her by covering her face with her own frock. The defence did not cross-examine this witness. 8. The victim girl was examined as P.W. 2. The accused went out for some time and came back before 12 O'clock, while the victim girl was playing outside and then he called her inside the house and raped her by covering her face with her own frock. The defence did not cross-examine this witness. 8. The victim girl was examined as P.W. 2. As per her evidence on the day of occurrence while she was playing with her friend outside the house and on being called by her father, she came to the house and thereafter her father closed the doors and windows of the house and asked her to sleep with him. While she laid down on the bed, her father closed her face by covering a wearing frock and asked not to utter any word and then grabbing her neck, he threatened her of dire consequences if she discloses anything to her sister and mother and thereafter she was raped by her father forcefully. She was then asked to sweep the rooms and at the time she was crying out of pain. After being raped, she was threatened by her father that he would kill her if she discloses the matter to anybody. When her mother came back at about 12.00 noon after duty, her father was lying on the bed. She was also lying on the bed because of pain and could not get up from the bed. Next day when her father was not at home, she disclosed to her mother about the incident. Her father disappeared from the house soon after she disclosed the incident to her mother. The defence cross-examined this witness but not in elaborate manner' to destroy her evidence. 9. The medical officer, Dr. L. Moyang, who examined the victim girl on being produced by the police, adduced evidence as P.W. 3. On examining the victim girl, he found her hymen being ruptured and in his opinion, there was a penetration of hard object in the vaginal organ and on account of which, the hymen was ruptured. In his opinion, forceful intercourse cannot be ruled out. The girl, in his opinion, was a minor. On cross-examination, he stated that he was not definite what type of hymen was ruptured. He firmly stated that the injury to the hymen could be caused by any hard object or penetration including male organ. 10. In his opinion, forceful intercourse cannot be ruled out. The girl, in his opinion, was a minor. On cross-examination, he stated that he was not definite what type of hymen was ruptured. He firmly stated that the injury to the hymen could be caused by any hard object or penetration including male organ. 10. The I.O. who was examined as P.W. 5, deposed that he forwarded the victim girl for medical examination during investigation. He recorded the statement of the victim girl and her mother. He also stated that he sent them for recording their statement under Section 164, Cr. P.C. and on completion of investigation filed the charge-sheet "Exh. Px-4". In cross-examination, he deposed that there was no eye-witness in this case and he arrested the accused on 4-11-2002. 11. Admittedly there having no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence, the learned trial Court has to act basically on the evidence of victim girl, who was aged about 10 years. This is a case where the accused has been convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and as such, it is to be examined whether it is highly probable that the appellant being the father of the victim would have sexually assaulted or raped his own daughter and whether the testimony of the prosecutrix is so consistent, cogent and reliable so as to record the conviction and sentence against the accused person under Section 379, IPC. 12. First of all, let us see the statement of the victim girl made before and recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, on 23-10-2002 (Exh. P-7). She stated on oath as follows: On 7-10-2002 I was playing in the open ground in front of ALC Line. Then my father called me into the house. My father told me that "why do you go any where and play" I told, you to stay in the house. So, how I shall have to punish you. When I entered in the room my father closed all windows and door and directed me to sleep on the floor. My father forced me to lay down on the floor with angry/harsh word. So, I out of fear laid down on the floor. Then my father rolled up my frock, shirt and closed the face. When I entered in the room my father closed all windows and door and directed me to sleep on the floor. My father forced me to lay down on the floor with angry/harsh word. So, I out of fear laid down on the floor. Then my father rolled up my frock, shirt and closed the face. Then he put off my under weat and then my father pushed his penis into my vagina I felt lot of pain in my part and asked my father not to do such act. I cried but again my father threatened me to kill me and pointed towards the big stick to beat me. He fucked me lot which I resisted but not any heed. Then after fucking I am still paining in my part for which I cannot even urine today. He warned me not to tell mother, sister and if so I will be beaten up. Then next day I informed my mother. In her deposition before the learned trial Court, the victim girl consistently stated the same as was stated before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. The operative portion of her disposition may be quoted below: On 7-10-20021 was at my own residence at ALC Line. On that particular day I was playing with my friend at around 9 a.m. Then my father called me into the house. Accordingly I went to the house. My father told me that where you were. My father told me that now a days you are always roaming here and there. Then I replied that I did not go any where but playing with my friends outside the house. Then my father told me that I am telling lie. Thereafter my father closed the doors and windows of the house. Then my father told me to sleep with him. Then I laid down on the bed. I was wearing a frock my father closed my face. Then I told my father why you are doing such act. Then my father told me not to utter any word and he grabbed my neck. Thereafter my father took out a cane stick and threatened me to with dire consequences if I disclose anything to my sister and mother about this. Thereafter my father raped me forcefully. Thereafter my father told me to sweep the rooms. At that time I was crying because of pain. Thereafter my father took out a cane stick and threatened me to with dire consequences if I disclose anything to my sister and mother about this. Thereafter my father raped me forcefully. Thereafter my father told me to sweep the rooms. At that time I was crying because of pain. When I go to urinal and when I came back my father scolded me saying that whether you are sweeping the room or roaming the room or roaming here and there. At that time none of my sisters and mother was there. On the particular day father did not allow me to go to school and told me that you are roaming all the time as such only other sisters will go to school and you should remain in the house. I recognize the accused standing in the dock he is my father and his name is Babulal. After raping me my father threatened me to kill if I disclose to any body. My mother came about 12 noon after duty. At that time father was lying on the bed. 1 was also lying on the bed because of pain and could not get up from the bed. My mother asked me why you are sleeping. Then I replied that I was simply lying on the bed but I did not disclose the fact to my mother due to fear. Next day when my father was outside of the house I disclosed the incident to my mother. At that time my mother was about to leave for her duty then I told my mother not to leave me alone as because my father may again commit same Act. At that time my father was over.... 13. Having carefully gone through the statement recorded under Section 164, Cr. P.C. and the deposition made before the learned trial Court, we find no contradiction therein rather they have been found to be very consistent and convincing. There is no ground for disbelieving the victim girl rather it has been affirmed by the testimony of the medical officer and his medical report (Exh. P.2). The said medical report contains other following injuries: 22. Genitals. Public Hair (Matted or not) : Not developed Vulva : N Vagina : N Hymen : Ruptured. Fourchette : N Perineum : N Cervix : N 23 and 24. … 25. P.2). The said medical report contains other following injuries: 22. Genitals. Public Hair (Matted or not) : Not developed Vulva : N Vagina : N Hymen : Ruptured. Fourchette : N Perineum : N Cervix : N 23 and 24. … 25. Opinion : The hymen membrane was found ruptured but bleeding was not found during examination. So, in my opinion a hard object was likely penetrated across the hymen membrane toward inside by which it could cause ruptured the membrane. 14. The medical officer, Shri L. Moyang, P.W. 3 testified the aforesaid medical report and the injury namely, rupture of hymen of the victim girl. The victim girl clearly deposed in her evidence that her father raped her forcefully and she was crying because of pain and she was lying on the bed because of pain as she could not get up from the bed. She also recognized the accused standing in the dock during trial. The informant, Smti Amrity Rai, the mother of the victim girl made statement before the Judicial Magistrate on 23-10-2002 and the same was recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. In her statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. the informant/mother stated thus: Then, on 8-10-2002 I was just ready to go out for duty Pinky rushed to me caught hold/embrace me and began to tell that she was raped by her father on the previous day. She also told me that father has warned after harassment not to disclose mother, sister threatened by a big cane stick. At that time her father/my husband silently heard from the door then I immediately went to DCs residence for duty. At about 8.00 a.m. I returned to my ALC Line and opened clothes to examine the private part (vagina) of my daughter and found that violence has been taken place for which the skins were found damaged, then I took her to MO CHC Roing, on which the doctor refused told me to take her to police after which she will be treated.... 15. Having perused the statement under Section 164, Cr. P.C. before the Magistrate and the deposition made before the learned trial Court, it is found that P.W. 1 also corroborated the statement and evidence of the victim girl. In rape cases, conviction on the sole testimony of prosecutrix is sustainable provided it inspires confidence and supported by medical evidence. 15. Having perused the statement under Section 164, Cr. P.C. before the Magistrate and the deposition made before the learned trial Court, it is found that P.W. 1 also corroborated the statement and evidence of the victim girl. In rape cases, conviction on the sole testimony of prosecutrix is sustainable provided it inspires confidence and supported by medical evidence. This position of law has been pronounced and followed by the Apex Court in several cases including Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 92 . We have seen that the testimony of the victim girl is supported by medical evidence and also corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 1. There is no contradiction, as stated earlier, in the statement and evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and that being the position it can be safely said that the evidence of the prosecutrix is as much reliable as confidence inspiring. The evidence of the prosecutrix is not contradicted by the medical evidence as well as by the evidence of her mother, P.W. 1, to whom, she narrated the entire incident after she was raped by her own father. There is no medical evidence to show that the prosecutrix was used to sexual intercourse, which is otherwise, not probable in case of a minor girl of 10 years old, whose generative organs, genitals and onset of puberty-date, as per medical report, have been found under developed. It was not therefore probable or even thinkable that she was used to sexual intercourse before the alleged incident. The testimony of the prosecutrix and the medical evidence on record lend positive corroboration to the testimony of the victim girl she was raped by none other else than her father. The evidence of the victim girl thus found to be reliable and trustworthy and acceptable for, no women, particularly, a minor girl who is emotionally and affectionately attached to her father, would falsely implicate her own father in sexual offence putting the honour and prestige of the family at stake and she herself being condemned and ostracized. We are convinced about the truthfulness of the victim girl in her evidence and we find no circumstance casting any shadow of doubt over her veracity. 16. We are convinced about the truthfulness of the victim girl in her evidence and we find no circumstance casting any shadow of doubt over her veracity. 16. The defence, in cross-examination, did not put any suggestion to the prosecutrix that she, being a minor and under the custody of her mother, was tutored and gave false evidence against her accused father. There was no suggestion to the victim girl that she was habituated to sexual intercourse before the alleged incident. The evidence of the victim girl remains unimpeached and un-shattered and this being the position, we find the prosecutrix to be a witness of sterling quality on whose sole testimony, a conviction could be sustained. In this regard, we would like to refer to and rely on Apex Court's decision in Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2007 SC 155 wherein, it is held that conviction on the sole basis of testimony of the prosecutrix is sustainable provided the Court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and she is found to be a witness of sterling quality. The evidence of the prosecutrix, could be discarded or disbelieved had there been no injury on any part of her body. In Yerumalla Latchaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2006) 3 SCC (Crt) 373, the Supreme Court had a occasion to deal with a case where the victim girl of 8 years was raped and the accused was convicted by the trial Court under Section 376, IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years, which, on appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction and reduced the sentence from 10 years to 7 years. On an appeal by special leave, the Apex Court acquitted the accused on the ground that no injury was found on any part of the body of the victim girl and the hymen was found intact and the doctor specifically stated that there was no sign of rape at all. The evidence of prosecutrix in the aforesaid case, being belied by the medical evidence, it was held that in the facts and circumstances of the ease, the High Court was not justified in upholding the conviction. The evidence of prosecutrix in the aforesaid case, being belied by the medical evidence, it was held that in the facts and circumstances of the ease, the High Court was not justified in upholding the conviction. There is no scope for application of the ratio of Latchaiah's case (supra) to the present case and to acquit the convict rather it can be applied to confirm the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court. Here is a case where, on being examined medically, the hymen of the victim girl was found ruptured, which has lent support to the evidence of the victim girl. 17. In reply to question No. 5 under Section 313, Cr. P.C. the accused stated that Pinky (victim girl) was not at home for about one week and she came only with her mother on the relevant day at 12.30 a.m. By this, the accused might have meant to say that his daughter had sexual intercourse with some body else before she returned home with her mother. Such defence, as sought to be taken by the accused, cannot be effective on the face of the evidence of P.W. 3, Dr. L. Moyang, who medically examined the victim and found that "the rupture was around 12 hours or more" and the evidence of the victim girl that she was playing with her friend at around 9 a.m. on the day of occurrence (7-10-2002) and her father called her into the house and thereafter she was raped forcefully. Her mother came at about 12.00 noon, i.e. after the incident. It was, therefore, proved that the incident of rape took place on 7-10-2002 between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. inside the house and the said evidence cannot be disbelieved unless the contrary is proved by adducing sufficient evidence. We are, therefore, not prepared to accept any theory sought to be projected by the accused that his daughter had sexual intercourse elsewhere by other person before she returned home with her mother. The evidence on record including the medical evidence does not suggest anything of the sort that the Court can have two views on the alleged incident of rape that it might have been committed by other person at different place and on different occasion except as alleged and proved by the victim girl, which is corroborated by P.W. 1 and the medical evidence. Had there been, any discrepancy or contradiction in the evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration from any witness, such a different view, could have been taken but it is not found in the present case and as such, we cannot afford to have a different view to the benefit of the accused person. 18. We have not noticed nor been pointed out that there are discrepancies or contradiction in the evidence of prosecutrix, P.W. 2 and her mother (P.W. 1) before whom the incident was narrated, to render the evidence of the victim girl unbelievable or unreliable to take a different view and give any benefit of doubt to the accused person. The incident took place inside the house and naturally there cannot be any eye-witness to the said incident. The accused exerted force to commit rape on his daughter and threatened her not to disclose the same to anybody but she had to disclose to her mother as she was found to be not in normal State. The victim girl narrated the incident to her mother and the evidence of both the victim girl and her mother have been corroborating each other. There may or may not be any discrepancies or contradictions. In Radhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2007 CriLJ 4704, it is held that in rape case finding of guilt can be based on uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix and her evidence should not be rejected on the basis of minor discrepancies and contradictions. Relevant portion of para 5 of the Judgment in the aforesaid case is quoted below: ...It is now well settled that a finding of guilt in a case of rape, can be based on uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix. The very nature of offence makes it difficult to get direct corroborating evidence. The evidence of the prosecutrix should not be rejected on the basis of minor discrepancies on oath that she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse, her statement will normally be accepted, even if it is uncorroborated, unless the material on record requires drawing of an inference that there was consent or that the entire incident was improbable or imaginary.... 19. Last of all we would like to refer ourselves to Md. Kalam v. State of Bihar reported in 2008 CriLJ 3194 . 19. Last of all we would like to refer ourselves to Md. Kalam v. State of Bihar reported in 2008 CriLJ 3194 . That was a case, where a girl of 6 years of age was allegedly taken to a lonely place and forcefully raped and the victim suffered terrible pain. Persons of the locality tried to intervene in the matter and there was some delay in lodging the FIR by the mother of the victim. Both the victim and the mother were examined as P.Ws. The trial Court and the High Court, relied on their evidence and held the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. The evidence of victim girl who was aged about 6 years, at the time of incident, was found to be free from any influence, cogent and credible and also corroborated by the evidence of her mother and held that conviction of accused is not liable to be interfered with. 20. As discussed earlier, we have also found the evidence of P.W. 2, victim girl in this case, cogent, reliable and corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 1, the mother of the victim girl. We do not find any ground for interference with the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court against the accused person. Having examined all possible aspects of the matter in the light of the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in the aforementioned cases, we find that the prosecution has been successful in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court and accordingly, we confirm the impugned judgment and order dated 30-8-2007. 21. The Criminal Reference is answered accordingly. 22. Send down the LCR to the Court below forthwith.