JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. None appears for the appellant. I have heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. This appeal has been preferred, under Section 374 of the Cr.PC, challenging the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.2002, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi, in G.R. Case No. 250 of 1999, corresponding to Sessions Case No. 113(DM) of 1999, convicting the accused appellant under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 7(seven) years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand) and in default further Rigorous Imprisonment for 6(six) months and also convicting under Section366, IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 4(four) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000 (Rupees one thousand) in default further RI for 2(two) months. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence, aforesaid, the present appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal. 2. The prosecution story in short is that one Miss X (name of the victim is withheld), who was a maid servant at the house of Smt. Jiliki Saikia of village of Nizdalgaon, went out in the night of 16.5.1999 to attend the call of nature towards the backside of the house of her mistress. After few hours she returned home and reported her mistress and the villagers that the accused Rinku Deka (present appellant) committed rape on her near the bank of the river. On receipt of such report from the victim girl Smt. Jiliki Saikia lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-charge of Dalgaon Police Station on 17.5.1999. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR the Police registered a case being Dalgaon PS. Case No. 111 of 1999 under Section 376 of the, IPC. After investigation charge sheet was submitted under Sections 376 and 307 of the IPC and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The learned Court of Sessions framed charges under Sections 366 and 376(1) of the IPC and on charges being explained, the accused appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to stand trial. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined as many as 7(seven) witnesses while the defence examined only one witness. 3. Let me appreciate the evidence of the victim girl herself who was examined as PW2. She stated that she was 14 years old at the time of occurrence. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined as many as 7(seven) witnesses while the defence examined only one witness. 3. Let me appreciate the evidence of the victim girl herself who was examined as PW2. She stated that she was 14 years old at the time of occurrence. On the date of occurrence, i.e., 16.5.999 at around 8 p.m. when she went out to attend the call of nature, the accused appellant pulled and took her to the riverside. In her evidence, she has given elaborate version how she was forcibly raped by the accused appellant and after being raped she was thrown in the water and left the scene. The defence counsel while cross-examining her tried to impeach the clear evidence of the victim girl by putting her questions with an intention to prove that she had consent to the aforesaid sexual intercourse and as such she received no injury on her person, inasmuch as, there was no resistance or struggle on her part against, the alleged forceful ravishment by the accused. 4. Smt. Jiliki Saikia, informant and mistress of the victim girl was also examined, as PW3. She has categorically stated that the victim girl was aged about 14 years on the date of occurrence. The victim girl was serving as a maidservant in her house since her childhood. It is stated by her that as Miss X was not returning home for a long time she made a search along with some co-villagers. After about one hour she came to the house of a neighbour, namely, Sri Jwali Deka @ Kosheswar Deka and there she had found the girl completely wet. The victim girl told the informant and other persons present that the accused appellant threw her into the water of the river after committing rape and fled the scene. The defence counsel tried to demolish her evidence in cross-examination and attempted to establish, that there was a rivalry between the son of PW3 and the accused appellant and as such a false allegation was brought against him. 5. One Puneswar Payeng, who was working as Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Udalguri, was examined as PW7. This witness recorded the statement of the victim girl under Section 164 of the Cr.PC. 5. One Puneswar Payeng, who was working as Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Udalguri, was examined as PW7. This witness recorded the statement of the victim girl under Section 164 of the Cr.PC. According to him, after recording the statement he obtained thumb impression of the victim girl on the said statement and he also sent her to the SDJM together with the records. The victim girl was medically examined by Dr. Bhabani Prasad Khound, Sub-Divisional Medical and Health Officer, Mangaldoi Civil Hospital on 17.5.1999. He prepared a report, i.e., Ext-2. According to him, the medical examination was done by him and in his opinion, no comment regarding sexual intercourse could be given. In cross-examination, he stated that the victim was examined during the office hours on 17.5.1999 and the life of a spermatozoa is 24 hours and if the alleged victim was sexually intercoursed by the accused on 16.5.1999 at about 8.00-9.00 p.m., thin living spermatozoa would have been found up to 8.00-9.00 p.m.. of 17.5.1999. Although he did not mention the time of the examination but he stated that he examined the victim in daytime. From the evidence of the victim girl (PW2) and PW3 it is well established that Miss X was a minor girl of between 14 and 15 years, at the time of occurrence. The aforesaid evidence, could not be demolished by the defence. The victim girl being a minor girl she was not capable of giving consent to any sexual act and even if such consent was given by her it will not be to the advantage of the accused person and as such, the stand of the defence cannot be accepted, more so, when here is No. other material to show that the victim girl was above 16 years. 6. The victim girl has been maintaining her stand right from the beginning while she was produced before the Magistrate and before the trial court to give her evidence. In her statement under Section 164, Cr.PC, Ext-4, she stated as follows: In the evening of 16.5.1999 when I went to ease myself, Rinku Deka, a boy from our village gagged me and took me to the bank of the river. There after forcefully removing my wearing he committed rape on me, as a result of which I bleeded from my genital organ. After this Shri Rinku Deka went in a run. There after forcefully removing my wearing he committed rape on me, as a result of which I bleeded from my genital organ. After this Shri Rinku Deka went in a run. I informed my aunt Jiliki about the occurrence yesterday itself. Immediately thereafter, my aunt informed the Dalgaon Police Station about it, by lodging an Ejahar. The policeman got me examined at the Civil Hospital, Mangaldoi. I shall leave today along with my mother. 7. There is no contradiction in her evidence before the court rather it is found that she has maintained the same without being impeached by the defence. The established position of law is that the evidence of the victim is enough to record conviction if her evidence is found trustworthy, believable and inspiring confidence of the court. This has been laid down in several decisions of the Apex Court which are not required to be cited again in this case. 8. The opinion of the doctor that no comment regarding sexual intercourse could be given, cannot destroy the oral evidence of the victim, inasmuch as, the opinion of the doctor is of little or of no effect if the, evidence of the victim girl is clear, cogent, convincing, trustworthy and inspiring confidence of the court. It is to be noted that soon after the ravishment the victim, girl was thrown in the water and she was completely wet and thereby it was possible that the spermatozoa and bleeding were washed out. It is not necessary that in all the cases there must be presence of injury on the vulva or other parts of the person. In this regard, I would like to refer to State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh (2004) 1 SCC 421, wherein it is held as under - 14. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. She stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former, it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. She stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former, it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of facts finds, it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct on circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration, as understood in the context of an accomplice would do. I would also like to refer to a decision of this Court rendered in Prakash Nath v. State of Assam(2008) 1 GLR 111, wherein, it is held that conviction can be ordered on sole uncorroborated evidence, even not supported by medical evidence provided the testimony of the prosecutrix inspires confidence of the court and found reliable, no matter whether the sexual, intercourse is with her consent. 9. Regarding the enmity between the son of PW3 and the accused, no evidence has been led by the defence. One Sri Kusheswar Deka (Joli), a co-villager was examined as DW1 by the defence. There is not even a whisper in his evidence that there was any enmity between the son of PW3 and the accused appellant. Without such evidence it would not be safe to accept the story of the defence or the stand taken by the defence side. 10. It must be noted that the victim girl apart from being a minor girl was an illiterate rustic person. It is unbelievable that such a simple village girl from a poor family would speak untruth to put the accused person in trouble with any built up story as has been alleged by the defence. In my considered view, the evidence of the victim girl read with her statements recorded under Section164, Cr.PC, which are supporting each other without any contradictions, should be accepted as true, liable and trustworthy. The findings and conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court on the basis of such materials and evidence on record cannot be reversed. Accordingly, I affirm the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court, which is under challenge in this appeal. Consequently, this appeal fails and stands dismissed. 11. The bail bonds stand discharged. The findings and conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court on the basis of such materials and evidence on record cannot be reversed. Accordingly, I affirm the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court, which is under challenge in this appeal. Consequently, this appeal fails and stands dismissed. 11. The bail bonds stand discharged. The accused appellant shall surrender himself before the trial court for serving the sentence forthwith within 15 (fifteen) from today, failing which, the learned trial court shall take necessary steps against the accused appellant. 12. The Registry shall send down the, records forthwith. Appeal dismissed