JUDGMENT Sabina, J.:- The appellant was convicted for an offence under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”- for short) vide judgment dated 17.3.2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Vide order dated 18.3.2009, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with a fine of Rs.2,500/- under Section 376 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 506 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Hence, the present appeal. 2. Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in para No. 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 5.9.2006 a police party headed by ASI Bhagwan Singh was present at T-Point of Khalsa College. Amritsar, where Simranjit Kaur complainant along with her mother Sonia came to him and got recorded her statement to the effect that some time earlier her father was doing business of selling Ayurvedic Medicines and he had gone to some unknown place by leaving his family. She has one sister and one brother namely Jasbir Kaur and Satnam Singh respectively, who are younger to her. Due to having no source of income, her mother Sonia got her and her sister Jasbir Kaur admitted in a private children home at Surta Singh Road, Kot Khalsa, Amritsar for their maintenance, which was being run by Arun Kumar accused. So many other children up to the age of 13 years were also living there. She and her sister used to go to Guru Teg Bahadur Modern School, Kot Khalsa for their studies in 5th class and U.K.G. Respectively. They have been residing in the above said children home fro the last 1½ month. Arun Kumar accused has been misbehaving with her(complainant) by kissing her with bad intention. So may times, the accused tried to misbehave with her but she had been coming out of the room. About three months back during nigh time, Arun Kumar committed rape with her by taking her in his room and by getting her clothers taken off forcibly and by keeping his hand on her mouth. The accused committed rape with her against her consent and wishes and further threatened the complainant to kill her. About three months back during nigh time, Arun Kumar committed rape with her by taking her in his room and by getting her clothers taken off forcibly and by keeping his hand on her mouth. The accused committed rape with her against her consent and wishes and further threatened the complainant to kill her. Thereafter, he continued indulging in such acts with her as and when he found opportunity and when her mother Sonia came to see the complainant, she disclosed to her mother about the said incident of rape committed by the accused and requested her to take her along with her. On the basis of the above said statement, the present case was registered and investigation was launched. During investigation, on 5.9.2006 Victoria wife of Alwin also got recorded her statement stating that her husband has expired and she having no source of income got her grand son Sanjay and grand daughter Rabi ager 11 years, admitted in Apna Ghar Children Home, Surta Singh Road, of which Arun Kumar accused was the administrative and when she came to know about Arun Kumar having committed, she enquired from her grand-daughter Rabia who disclosed her that the accused had been misbehaving wither also and used to threaten to kill her, if she disclosed regarding this said acts to any one. The accused was arrested and he along with the victims were got medically examined.” 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. This is an unfortunate case of rape by an Incharge of a Children Home. The victim is a young girl aged about ten years. Although in the present case the allegation against the petitioner was that he had committed rape on the person of two minor girls aged about eleven years, but one of the prosecutrix did not support the prosecution case. However, the other prosecutrix, while appearing in the witness box as PW-4, had duly proved the prosecution case. 5. PW-4, while appearing in the witness box, deposed that the appellant was Incharge of the Children Home, where she along with her sister had been got admitted as her mother did not have sufficient income to support them. Her father had left the house when she was a kid. The appellant indulged in immoral activities with her. 5. PW-4, while appearing in the witness box, deposed that the appellant was Incharge of the Children Home, where she along with her sister had been got admitted as her mother did not have sufficient income to support them. Her father had left the house when she was a kid. The appellant indulged in immoral activities with her. The prosecutrix was taken by the appellant to his room and he committed sexual intercourse with her. The appellant had raped her on 5-6 occasions. She did not narrate the incident to any one except her mother. 6. PW/1- Dr.Roopam Basricha, who medico legally examined the prosecutrix on 6.9.2006, deposed that as per clinical examination, there was nothing to suggest that the prosecutrix had not been subjected to sexual intercourse. She has deposed that on vaginal examination, hymen was found torn and admitted one finger. 7. The testimony of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and is duly corroborated by medical evidence. The statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded by the Magistrate-PW/10 under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein, she had deposed as per the prosecution case. PW-11, Dr.Poonam Ohri deposed that as per her examination of various X-Ray reports, the prosecutrix was aged about 10-12 years. The offence committed by the appellant is heinous in nature. He being Incharge of the Children Home should have been the protector of the children admitted there but he himself has committed rape of a minor girl aged about 10-12 years. The minor girl-prosecutrix had no reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case. In these circumstances, no ground for interference in the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court, while convicting and sentencing the appellant under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, is made out. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ------------