Judgment :- 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th February, 2009 passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge Khamgaon in Sessions Trial No.4 of 2008 whereby the appellant was found guilty of offences of kidnapping and raping a minor girl Pinky aged about 13 years. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim Pinky on or about 9.10.2007 at 5.00 p.m. had gone to Ghat Bhingara for grinding jwar in a flour mill, which was closed and, as such, Pinky halted at the house of her cousin, by name, Radkya Bhilala on that night. On the following morning, she got the jwar grinded from flour mill and was returning with her niece Ku. Sangeeta, aged about 5 years, by road. The appellant/ accused Edlya met her on the road near Bhendi Pahad and asked her to accompany with him saying that he wants to marry her. Despite steadfast spurning of the offer by the prosecutrix, he forcibly took her to his brother's house who also sided with the accused. Later the accused took her to the field of one Ramesh Dharme in Sungaon Shiwar and then to a hut and raped her. The victim had somehow succeeded in escape and narrated the incident to her father who lodged report at JalgaonJamod Police Station on 13.10.2007, being FIR No. 114/2007 registered under sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was arrested on 14.10.2007. The Investigating Officer proceeded to the spot of incident pointed out by father of the victim girl and drew Panchnama (Exh.16). During the course of investigation, clothes of victim as also clothes of accused were seized under Panchnamas. The seized articles were sent for chemical analysis. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, JalgaonJamod who, committed the case to the Additional Court of Sessions in Khamgaon, for trial. 3. Charge was framed on 12.8.2008 (Exh.9). The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As many as eight witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution. The defence of the accused was that of total denial. 4. In support of Appeal, Mr R M Patwardhan, learned Advocate for appellant, submitted that the trial Court ought to have given benefit of doubt to the appellant as there may be possibility of false involvement of the appellant. The defence of the accused was that of total denial. 4. In support of Appeal, Mr R M Patwardhan, learned Advocate for appellant, submitted that the trial Court ought to have given benefit of doubt to the appellant as there may be possibility of false involvement of the appellant. He made a reference to the evidence of PW 1 Gulabsingh who had deposed about an village meeting of Panchas in which father of Pinky (prosecutrix) demanded Rs.30,000/-from appellant, which was denied by the appellant. Tatusingh (PW 2), father of prosecutrix, has flatly denied any quarrel between him and Pyarsingh (father of Idlya). There was no suggestion in cross-examination about any village meeting as aforesaid. Prosecutrix Pinky was examined as PW 3 who deposed about the incident. She stated that while she was returning with jwar flour, near Bhendi Pahad area, the accused Idlya caught hold of her and insisted upon her to come with him. On stubborn refusal, she was assaulted by iron chain and was forced to accompany with the appellant. She was taken to SungaonShiwar in the field of one Ramesh Dharme and inside the hut of that field, accused had subjected the prosecutrix to forcible sexual intercourse thrice during that night. On the following day, the prosecutrix was taken to the house of Dhansingh. When Idlya went out to bring meal, the prosecutrix ran away and went back to her parents' house and narrated the incident to them. Thereafter, they decided to lodge report (Exh.19) to the Police. Prosecutrix was referred for medical examination. Dr Prashant Sonone, Medical Officer in General Hospital, Khamgaon (PW 4), examined prosecutrix Pinky and found the following injuries on her persons : “(1) Two wounds well epithelialised, black in colour are seen over medial aspect of right foot of size 0.5 x 0.5 cm. Caused by blunt and rough object. 2) Hymen ruptured laceration red coloured on right side of size 0.5 cm vertical jut outside hymen is seen. 3) Per vaginal exam: admits just one finger, Patient not cooperating for P/V exam. Perineum intact.” The observations in respect of injuries of rupture of hymen, laceration just outside hymen, vagina admitting one finger and opinion expressed about possibility of penetration do corroborate the prosecutrix's evidence. Dr. Sahebrao Manwar (PW 7) who conducted radiological examination (Exh.36) to determine age of the prosecutrix opined that she was aged between 14 to 15 years. Perineum intact.” The observations in respect of injuries of rupture of hymen, laceration just outside hymen, vagina admitting one finger and opinion expressed about possibility of penetration do corroborate the prosecutrix's evidence. Dr. Sahebrao Manwar (PW 7) who conducted radiological examination (Exh.36) to determine age of the prosecutrix opined that she was aged between 14 to 15 years. C.A. Report (Exh.14) corroborated the evidence of prosecutrix. As few bloodstains were detected on skirt ranging from 0.5 cm. to 3 cm. in diameter spread at places; so also two semen stains detected each about 2 c.m. in diameter, on front middle portion of knicker. 5. Learned Advocate for appellant made reference to the State of U.P. vs. Jaggo @ Jagdish and others: 1971 Cri.L.J. 1173 (SC), to argue that all witnesses of the prosecution need not be called but witnesses whose evidence is essential to the unfolding of the narrative must be called. Absence of material witnesses does seriously affect the truth of the prosecution case. It cannot be disputed that evidence of all available eye witnesses to the incident is must to determine guilt or innocence of the accused. Therefore, eye witnesses whose evidence is essential to the unfolding of narrative on which the prosecution case is based are required to be examined because absence of an eye witness may affect the fair trial. Nothing really prevented the accused from insisting upon applying for production of any witness (not examined by the prosecution) to be cross-examined. No such case was made out to produce any witness for the purpose of cross-examination. In a rape trial the trial Court as a general rule, cannot refuse to act upon testimony of victim once it is found that it is reliable and has a ring of truth. The evidence of prosecutrix in a trial for offence of rape and kidnapping is like an injured witness deposing about physical assault upon him or her. Injury to a rape victim is physical, mental as well as irreparable scar on her reputation as it gets spoiled and honour is lost in the eyes of members of the society to which she belongs. 6. Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that stains of semen were found on the knicker of the appellant and not on the knicker of prosecutrix. 6. Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that stains of semen were found on the knicker of the appellant and not on the knicker of prosecutrix. The trial Court ought to have observed that semen stain on the underwear of young man is natural. This submission could have been appreciated in the absence of evidence of forcible sexual intercourse as deposed to by the prosecutrix girl to which medical evidence also corroborated, which leads to an inevitable conclusion that the appellant had subjected the prosecutrix minor girl, aged about 14 years old to forcible sexual intercourse after having kidnapped her from her lawful guardianship. Learned Trial Judge had ample evidence before him to reach the findings of conviction, in the facts and circumstances of the case.. 7. Learned Advocate for the appellant, in the alternative, submitted that the appellant may be released by taking a lenient view to treat the sentence as already undergone as sufficient. I cannot agree with the submission as the Courts are required to show great sensitivity to serious crime committed of raping a minor girl. 8. I have perused the ruling in State of H P vs. Mange Ram: 2000 Cri.L.J. 4027 (SC) In the said ruling acquittal was set aside considering that in presence of village people the parties must have buried the hatchet since acquittal by the courts below, the sentence was reduced in the interest of justice by the Court to that as already undergone. 9. In the case in hand, a minor girl below 16 years of age, was physically and sexually ravished. The trial Court had accepted her evidence which is found reliable. Conviction in such a case can be recorded even upon sole uncorroborated testimony if testimony is blemishless or worthy of credence. The other evidence led by the prosecution had provided necessary corroboration even if it is felt that it was required. The trial Court had taken lenient view considering that the appellant hails from a rural background, impoverished family and that other family members were dependent on him as also his youth, while directing that all the sentences were to run concurrently. 10. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, no ground is made out to reduce the sentence awarded by the trial Court. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. 11. Copy of this judgment and order be served upon the appellant-convict through Superintendent of Jail, concerned.