Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 438 (GAU)

Haren Borah v. State of Assam

2011-05-20

P.K.MUSAHARY

body2011
ORDER P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. Also heard Mr. B.S. Sinha, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam. 2. The conviction under Section 376(f)/511 and sentence to undergo RI for 7 years with default stipulation handed down by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat vide judgment and order dated 19.4.2006 is under challenge in this criminal appeal. 3. The mind disturbing facts as disclosed in the first information report are that while the informant was residing in a rented house of accused Appellant her daughter Kalpana (the real name kept in secret) aged about 7 years was subjected to sexual abuse by the Appellant on several occasions. The first incident took place on the day of celebration of Shiv Ratri when the first informant went to temple of the Lord Shiva leaving her minor daughter Kalpana and son in her rented house. The accused Appellant induced informant's children to come to his house in her absence for showing them CD. At one point of time, on the first day of the incident, Kalpana was taken in a separate room by the Appellant and she was forced to lie down on the bed and removing her clothes forcibly raped her by penetrating his penis in her vagina. She was put into fear not to disclose the fact to any body, else she would be killed. The same sexual abuse upon the minor girl took place on several occasions. The victim girl did not dare to disclose it to her parents or anybody out of fear of being killed by the accused Appellant. The victim girl used to have a depressed mind and now and then she used to complain of feeling pain on her sexual organ. Ultimately she narrated before her mother the entire incidents. This led to lodging of an FIR with the local police which was registered as Golaghat P.S. Case No. 302/2003 under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860. During investigation the Police got her examined medically and got her statements recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure The accused Appellant was arrested and a charge-sheet was submitted against him under Section 376(f) Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case was committed to Court of Sessions and it was registered as Sessions Case No. 90/2004. During investigation the Police got her examined medically and got her statements recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure The accused Appellant was arrested and a charge-sheet was submitted against him under Section 376(f) Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case was committed to Court of Sessions and it was registered as Sessions Case No. 90/2004. The learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat framed charge under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and after convulsion of the trial convicted and sentenced the accused Appellant as mentioned earlier. During trial prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses and the defence also examined 3 witnesses. 4. Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the prosecution story is absolutely false and the same could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The FIR was lodged after about 5 months from the date of alleged first occurrence without any satisfactory explanation and the said FIR was lodged out of personal vendetta as the father of the victim girl defaulted in payment of house rent and he used to come late in the night in drunken state. The FIR was lodged after the informant along with her family shifted to a different rented house. Moreover, the allegation of rape is not supported by medical evidence inasmuch as the medical officer who examined the victim girl found No. injury on her private part and found her hymen intact. The defence, according to Mr. Mahajan had dis-proved the allegation that the victim girl was raped in the house of the Appellant when her wife was absent, by adducing evidence of Appellant's wife and two other witnesses who deposed to the effect that they performed the Shivratri in the house of the accused and they did not go to other place for celebrating Shivaratri. 5. For disposal of this appeal I would first look into the evidence on record. PW.1 is one Dr. Uttam Prasad Dutta who was working as Senior Medical & Health Officer at Golaghat Civil Hispital, Golaghat and on that day as per Police requisition in connection with Golaghat P.S. Case No. 302 of 2003 he examined Miss. Kalpana, daughter of Sri Munin Nath of Golaghat at 11.30 A.M. on being escorted and identified by Constable No. 221 Mrs. Uttam Prasad Dutta who was working as Senior Medical & Health Officer at Golaghat Civil Hispital, Golaghat and on that day as per Police requisition in connection with Golaghat P.S. Case No. 302 of 2003 he examined Miss. Kalpana, daughter of Sri Munin Nath of Golaghat at 11.30 A.M. on being escorted and identified by Constable No. 221 Mrs. Rashida Begum, he examined the victim in presence of female attendant Smt. Putali Bora and recorded a report as under Identified Mark: Black mole on the posterior aspect of the left scapular region. Height-115 cm, Weight-19 kg, build-Average, Teeth 12/12 1st Moler present, Axilliary hair-absent, breast-Not developed, Pubic hair-absent, Hymen-intact, Vagina does not admit the tip of finger. No. injury seen to her private part. Virginal Smear: No. spermatozoa seen. X-Ray of Right wrist joint shows non appearance of epiphysis of pisiform bone. PW-2 is one Smti. Tulimoni Nath, who happens to be the aunt of the victim. She stated that the occurrence took place on 1.3.2003 and she resided in the house of the accused Appellant along with the victim, her brother, sister-in-law for about five years. She further stated that her elder brother used to work at Golaghat Court and as such they resided in the rented house of accused Appellant. She stated that the occurrence took place two years ago and she was at home and the victim was also at home, although her sister-in-law Sunumoni Nath went to Shiv Temple at about 3 p.m. and the accused Appellant called the victim and her brother to enjoy CD. She further stated that thereafter they returned at 3-30 p.m. and on the next day also as her brother and sister-in-law went to Numoligarh, the accused Appellant called both of them to enjoy CD. She further stated that after three days of the date of occurrence her elder brother shifted to the house of Keshab Borthakur and the FIR was lodged after the victim disclosed about the incident and at that time they were not in the house of the accused Appellant. In cross-examination she stated that some other tenant also used to reside with their children in the same compound of the accused Appellant. She further stated that if some one enters into the house of accused Appellant the other tenant could witness the same. 6. PW-3 is the victim girl. In cross-examination she stated that some other tenant also used to reside with their children in the same compound of the accused Appellant. She further stated that if some one enters into the house of accused Appellant the other tenant could witness the same. 6. PW-3 is the victim girl. She stated that she stayed in the house of the accused Appellant for six months and on 1st of March, it was the day of Shiv Ratri and her mother went to the Shiv Temple. She further stated that she was in the house along with her brother and aunt Tulumoni (PW-2) and the accused Appellant called her and her brother to enjoy TV, while her aunt was at the house. She further stated that thereafter while they were enjoying TV, the accused Appellant on the pretext of showing some thing to her called her in the bed room and laid her on the bed and thereafter penetrated the male organ of the accused Appellant in her private part. It continued for about five minutes and when she told him that "it is paining, it is paining." The accused Appellant gagged and threatened her that if she tells such thing to her parents, he would kill and throw her in the jungle. She was afraid and thereafter returned home with her brother. She did not state to her parents as she was so threatened. After three days while she was playing "Lodu" and while her parents were not at home at about 2 p.m. the accused Appellant again repeated the same thing. She could not tell her parents as she was threatened in a similar manner as was done on earlier occasion. She further stated that after some days when her parents went to Numaligarh, the accused Appellant again called her and repeated the same act and she did not disclose to her parents as she was under threat and the accused Appellant repeated the same act on another date which she could not disclose to her parents. She further stated that after one month of commission of such act her father changed the house and they shifted to another rented house situated at Amalapatty. She further stated that her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She identified and proved her signature which are marked as Exhibit 3(1) and 3(2). She further stated that after one month of commission of such act her father changed the house and they shifted to another rented house situated at Amalapatty. She further stated that her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She identified and proved her signature which are marked as Exhibit 3(1) and 3(2). In cross-examination she stated that they shifted to the house of accused Appellant only on 1.3.2003 and some other tenants also used to reside in the house of accused Appellant who are known as Dutta and Das. She admitted that her father used to work in Golaghat Court although she has No. knowledge as to what duties he used to perform. She further stated that on the first day of occurrence the families of Dutta and Das were at home and her mother along with wife of Haren Bora went to Shiv Temple. She admitted that on the day they left the house of accused Appellant her father paid house rent to another person. She denied that there was a dispute between her father and the accused Appellant due to non payment of rent. She also denied that a false case has been lodged due to such dispute. 7. PW-4 Smti. Sunumoni Nath, is the mother of the victim girl. She stated that she lodged the FIR. It does not contain the signature of the writer and date. She signed the FIR on 28.7.03. She stated that No. explanation has been mentioned in the FIR for the delay in lodging it. She admitted that she stated before the police that she went to Shiv Temple along with the wife of the Appellant. She further stated that the wife of the accused Appellant and the families of Dutta and Das used to live in the rented house of the accused along with their children. PW-5, is Sri Momin Nath, the father of the victim. He stated that the victim is his daughter and he stayed in the house of accused Appellant from 12.2.2003 to 17.7.2003. He further stated that he did not know anything about the incidents while he was residing in the rented house of the accused Appellant and he came to know about the incident after he shifted to the present rented house. He further stated that he did not know anything about the incidents while he was residing in the rented house of the accused Appellant and he came to know about the incident after he shifted to the present rented house. He stated that her daughter used to ask him to change the house but she did not state the reason whenever she asked him to change the house. He further stated that after coming to know about the same from his daughter and after consultation the FIR was lodged. In cross examination he stated that his daughter did not state the dates of subsequent occurrence although she stated him the date of the first occurrence. He further stated that on 29.7.2003 he got the FIR drafted by an advocate's clerk (Toroni). PW-6 is one Jagat Gogoi who is a hearsay witness only. 8. PW-7 is the Investigating Officer. He stated that on 29.7.2003 he was working as town Assistant Sub-Inspector at Golaghat police station and on that day the Officer-in-charge received the FIR (Ext.5) and entrusted him to investigate the case. He further stated that he visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and sent the victim for medical examination and also got the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, and after receiving the medical report submitted charge-sheet against the accused Appellant. 9. The defence also adduced his evidence. Smti. Binapani Bora (DW-1) is the wife of the accused Horen Borah. She stated that on 1.3.2003, Shivratri was celebrated in their house and on that day she was at her house along with her husband. She further stated that 2/3 neighbours also visited their house. Other tenants namely Sunumoni and Minu Das also came. She again stated that Puja started at about 12 noon and her husband was at home till evening. She further stated that the informant party left without paying house rent for three months and the informant's husband used to rebuke after consuming liquor and also used to threaten whenever he was asked for the rent. In cross-examination she stated that she was never examined by police and police never visited her house. The tenants were also never examined by police. DW-2 Minu Das, is a tenant of the accused Horen Borah. In cross-examination she stated that she was never examined by police and police never visited her house. The tenants were also never examined by police. DW-2 Minu Das, is a tenant of the accused Horen Borah. She stated that she used to live in one of the rented houses of the accused Appellant and on 1.3.2003 Shiv Ratri was celebrated in the house of the accused Appellant. She was present at home. Some other devotees came and they stayed at Appellant's house till 4 P.M. She further stated that accused Appellant and his wife were also at home. DW-3 is one Kula Kr. Bora. He stated that on 1.3.03 the Shiv Ratri was celebrated at the house of the accused Appellant by singing devotional songs. He stayed in the house of the accused Appellant from 10 A.M. to 4 P.M. Some other tenants namely, Minu, Sunumoni and other neighbouring people also came. Accused Appellant along with his wife was also present. In cross-examination he stated that police did not examine him and Momin Nath used to work in the Judge's Court at Golaghat. 10. Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing for the accused/Appellant submits that the evidence of prosecutrix (PW-3) is full of contradictions, exaggerations and improvements and the sane makes her evidence untrustworthy, unreliable and devoid of sterling quality. The evidence of the prosecutrix that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 1.3.03 they shifted from the house of accused Appellant has been controverted by the evidence of PW-4 who deposed that in fact they started living in the rented house of accused Appellant since 12.2.03 and as such the claim of the prosecutrix that on that very day the alleged incident occurred is palpably false and renders her as the most un-reliable witness. The evidence of prosecutrix is also contradictory on another material point inasmuch as, she, in her cross-examination stated that her mother went to Shiv Temple along with the wife of accused Appellant, although the mother of the prosecutrix (PW-4) has admitted by stating before police that she went to Shiv Temple along with Appellant's wife. Even the evidence of PW-2 also revealed that the mother of the prosecutrix went alone to Temple and as such the evidence of PW-4 cannot be relied upon. Even the evidence of PW-2 also revealed that the mother of the prosecutrix went alone to Temple and as such the evidence of PW-4 cannot be relied upon. The aforementioned piece of evidence has been brought in for the first time before the Court but the same are missing in her statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 11. The learned Counsel for the accused Appellant further submits that there are several improvements as well as contradictions regarding claim of the prosecutrix that after a gap of three days of the first incident she was again called up by the accused Appellant and thereafter also again after some days, when her parents went to Numaligarh to sell a plot of land, the accused Appellant called her and repeated the same act and again on another date he repeated the same act, were not stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure and the same makes her a most un-reliable witness. Further, in her statement under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure she did not state that the Appellant gagged her mouth on the first day of the occurrence. He assertively submits that conviction can be based on solitary evidence of the prosecutrix only when her evidence is found cogent, reliable and of sterling quality but in the instant case there are contradictions, improvements and exaggerations which are apparently the result of tutoring and rendering her evidence most unreliable witness. To bring home his point he would refer to State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Samail Baiju, reported in 2010 (4) GLT 95and Arbind Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1994 SC 10678. The learned Counsel further submits that the evidence of the prosecutrix is not reliable as there was No. prompt disclosure of the alleged offence and the delay has been caused to manipulate, fabricate and to give a colourized and false version of the occurrence. According to him there was a delay of about 5 months in lodging the FIR and there is No. instance of giving threat to the prosecutrix and a dispute arose due to non-payment of the house rent by the father of the prosecutrix to the accused Appellant. According to him there was a delay of about 5 months in lodging the FIR and there is No. instance of giving threat to the prosecutrix and a dispute arose due to non-payment of the house rent by the father of the prosecutrix to the accused Appellant. It has also been argued with great force that the medical evidence belies the oral evidence of the victim inasmuch as, on medical examination, No. injury was found in the person of the prosecutrix. Further it is argued that the evidence of the defence witnesses should be given similar weightage to that of the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Last of all, it is argued that in the instant case on the basis of the evidence adduced it is possible to take two views, one to the guilt of the accused Appellant and the other to his innocence. Relying upon the decision reported in, (2003) 12 SCC 646: Ramananda Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha and Ors., the learned Counsel submits that in such cases the view which favours the accused Appellant should be adopted. 12. The Appellant has laid much stress and importance on the medical evidence. Repeatedly reference has been made to Ext. 1 medical report and the evidence of the medical officer. As per medical evidence there is No. sign of sexual intercourse as No. injury was found in her private parts, the relevant portion of evidence of Medical Officer, is quoted hereunder: ...I also signed the vaginal report and the scigram report. Exhibit-1 is my report where Exhibit-1 (1) is my signature. Exhibit-2 is the vaginal smear report where Exhibit-2(1) is my signature. Exhibit-3 is the scigram report where Exhibit 3(1) is my signature. Cross-examination: For the accused There is No. injury in the private parts. There is also No. sign of sexual intercourse. To the Court: 1 had not taken the history regarding the alleged occurrence or occurrences either from the alleged victim or any of her parents. Vaginal spermatozoa in a case of rape/sexual intercourse can be there present in the vagina up top 48 hours, if not washed away or in anyway wiped out spermatozoa may be there outside the vagina. I did not ask the alleged victim or her parents whether the private parts 1 examined for the spermatozoa had been washed away before coming to me. I did not ask the alleged victim or her parents whether the private parts 1 examined for the spermatozoa had been washed away before coming to me. If there was any particles of spermatozoa outside the vagina that might have been disappeared after washing. 13. From the evidence on record it has been established undisputedly that the victim girl was minor at the time of occurrence. She was merely 7 years old. This has not been disputed. From the nature of cross-examination of the PWs, particularly the victim girl PW-3, it appears that the defence tried to impeach the evidence of the victim girl as being tutored and it was purposefully done by her parents to malign the reputation of the Appellant as he occasionally objected to late coming of victim's father as a tenant in the nights in drunken state. The defence tried to demolish the evidence of the victim with the help of the medical evidence inasmuch as the PW-1, Medical Officer tendered evidence contrary to the claim of the victim girl. 14. This case has to be decided bearing in mind that the victim girl is not an accomplice of the offence. She being a victim, her evidence should be given prior importance and there is No. need of corroboration by other witnesses, not even by any supporting medical evidence, provided her evidence is consistence, trustworthy, reliable and of sterling quality gaining the confidence of the court. This aspect has to be examined on the basis of the evidence on record. 15. It is No. doubt correct that the Doctor, PW-1, after examining the victim girl opined that there was No. sign of sexual intercourse. As per medical report the hymen was found intact. Apparently, if the Medical Report Ext. 1 is read with the evidence of the PW-1, there is No. case of rape on the person of the victim girl and the accused Appellant is entitled to acquittal. Can it be done so by a Court ? For answering this question, it is necessary to examine the provisions of law under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the laws laid down by the Apex Court in different cases on various occasions. Can it be done so by a Court ? For answering this question, it is necessary to examine the provisions of law under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the laws laid down by the Apex Court in different cases on various occasions. Rape has been defined under Section 375 Indian Penal Code, 1860 as under: 375: A man is said to commit "rape" who except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the five following description: First-Against her will, Secondly-without her consent. Thirdly-with her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death, or of hurt. Fourthly-With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes, that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. Fifthly-With her consent, when at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome sub-stance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent. Sixthly-With or without her consent, when she is under "sixteen" years of age. 16. As per the first explanation to Section 375 Indian Penal Code, 1860 penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse but there is No. further explanation as to what amount of penetration is required for the purpose of establishing a case of offence of rape. In the present case the hymen is found intact which implies that there was No. penetration of a full grown male organ like that of the accused person. In medical terms to constitute rape it is not necessary that there should be complete penetration of penis with emission of semen and rapture of hymen. What is indeed necessary is a partial penetration of penis with labia majora or vulva or pudenda with or without emission of semen. Medically speaking, even an attempt at penetration is quite sufficient for the purpose of law. Rapture of hymen is therefore not really necessary to establish a case of rape inasmuch as it is legally possible to commit offence of rape without causing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains. Medically speaking, even an attempt at penetration is quite sufficient for the purpose of law. Rapture of hymen is therefore not really necessary to establish a case of rape inasmuch as it is legally possible to commit offence of rape without causing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains. For the purpose of clarifying this medico-legal aspect of the matter I would respectfully refer myself to decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Munna Choubey and Anr., reported in (2005) 2 SCC 710 . I would also refer to Tarkeswar Sahu v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) reported in (2006) 8 SCC 560 wherein it is held that the basic ingredient of proving a charge of rape is the accomplishment of the act with force and slightest penetration with or without any emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration is sufficient. Rapture of hymen is not necessary. It is also, further held that in order to constitute rape, what Section 375 Indian Penal Code, 1860 requires is medical evidence of penetration, and this may occur and the hymen remain intact. 17. The medical officer while deposing before the court offered No. comment or opinion as to whether there was penetration of penis to any degree. In the medical report Ext. 1 also No. opinion has been offered in this regard. In a case of rape penetration is sine qua-non for the offence of rape but the degree of penetration is however not relevant. In absence of opinion of the medical officer/medical evidence whether it is possible to come to a conclusion by the court that there was such penetration. In the present case the victim girl categorically stated in her evidence that the accused inserted his male organ in her vagina on each occasion. She also categorically stated that due to penetration there was a pain on her private part although there was No. bleeding. This part of the evidence could not be demolished nor ever attempted by the defence to demolish the same. Not even a suggestion was put to the victim girl that there was No. penetration of the Appellant's penis in her vagina. Such suggestion having not been put it has remained un-controverted and stood proved that there was penetration. No. matter the accused Appellant failed to penetrate his penis to the full or slightest degree. Not even a suggestion was put to the victim girl that there was No. penetration of the Appellant's penis in her vagina. Such suggestion having not been put it has remained un-controverted and stood proved that there was penetration. No. matter the accused Appellant failed to penetrate his penis to the full or slightest degree. From the nature of cross-examination it is well discernible that the defence took the plea that since there was No. penetration and No. rapture of hymen, No. case of rape has been made out but this is not the present position of law. As discussed earlier, an attempt at penetration by penis touching labia majora or vulva in pudenda surely constitutes the offence of rape. The victim girl complained pain on her vagina and it is enough for the court to come to a conclusion that the accused Appellant did really make attempt to insert his penis on each occasion. 18. Before recording her evidence, the learned Sessions Judge, testified the minor girl (victim) and satisfied himself that she was capable of understanding the question well and capable of tendering evidence too. The possibility of being tutored by her parents could be examined from the manner of her deposition before the trial court. She answered all the questions in a straightforward manner and she could withstand the charging cross-examination by the defence. There is No. major contradiction or inconsistency in her deposition. She could do so because it is her own horrible experience of sexual abuse which was still fresh in her tender mind. The victim girl narrated her experience of sexual abuse from her heart and she required No. tutoring and had there been any tutoring there would have been serious contradictions. The defence has put No. suggestion to the victim (PW-3) to the effect that she deposed before the court as told or tutored by her parents against the Appellant. In absence of such suggestion the court can not come to a conclusion that the victim brought false allegation and accordingly deposed before the court as dictated by someone. 19. As regards the delay in filing the FIR it must be noted that the victim girl was intimidated and told not to disclose the incident before anybody and if she does so she would be killed in jungle. 19. As regards the delay in filing the FIR it must be noted that the victim girl was intimidated and told not to disclose the incident before anybody and if she does so she would be killed in jungle. The minor girl naturally got frightened and could not gather courage to disclose it to anybody including her parents. Moreover her family is a tenant of the accused person and so she was determined to disclose the incidents to her parents once they could move to other house. In her evidence it is found that she used to enquire from her father when they would be shifting to other place/house and in fact she disclosed the incident to her mother soon after they shifted to another rented house. In my considered view this is sufficient to explain the cause of delay in filing the FIR and it has to be treated as sufficient and satisfactory. The story of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved on the mere delay in filing the FIR. 20. The defence plea that the prosecution brought false allegation of rape as the father of the victim failed to pay the house rent and he shifted to another rented house without paying the house rent has been disproved by PW-5, father of the victim, who categorically deposed that he left rented house of the accused Appellant in his absence but he paid the house rent to the accused/Appellant's niece Smti. Nayanmoni Bora. The defence made a serious attempt to prove that Shiv Ratri was being celebrated in the house of the accused in presence of many neighbours. Interestingly the Appellant examined his wife as DW-1 Binapani Bora, one neighbour namely Minu Das (Purnima) as DW-2. DW-1 is an interested witness being the wife of the accused Appellant. DW-2 is not an independent witness inasmuch as she is a tenant and under the control of the accused Appellant. DW-3 Sri Kulo Kamal Borbora is a man from other locality. He may be an independent witness but his presence and participation in the Shivaratri celebration at the Appellant's house on the date of occurrence has not been proved by any neighbour present on the occasion. In fact No. close door neighbour has been adduced as witness to prove the fact that the Shivaratri was celebrated in the house of the Appellant. In fact No. close door neighbour has been adduced as witness to prove the fact that the Shivaratri was celebrated in the house of the Appellant. In my considered view the defence did not succeed in proving the fact that the Shivaratri was celebrated in the house of the Appellant and his wife including others were present at home for celebration of the Shivaratri. 21. Before coming to a conclusion, I must refer myself to law established in several cases including Dinesh Buddha v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2006) 3 SCC 771 wherein it is held that corroboration is not sine qua non for conviction of the accused in rape cases. The Court is not bound to seek for corroboration from medical or oral evidence, if the evidence of the victim girl is cogent, consistent, trustworthy and of sterling quality gaining confidence of the court. On perusal of the evidence on record, I find that the quality of the evidence of the victim girl has satisfied the required standard set by the Apex Court and the same must be accepted without hesitation. If I refuse to act on the testimony of the victim girl of sexual assault for want of perceived mechanical corroboration as a rule, it would definitely amount to adding insult to the injury and denial of justice not only to the victim girl but also to the entire society. I may appropriately quote from the said judgment In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule is adding insult to injury. 22. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, particularly the evidence of the victim girl, discussion undertaken in the light of various decisions rendered by the Apex Court, I am impelled to come to a conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the defence failed to make out any case for taking different views other than what has been taken by the learned trial Court for interfering with the impugned conviction and sentence. I, therefore, affirm the conviction and sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court in judgment and order dated 19.04.2006 in Sessions Case No. 90(JJ)/2004. 23. The appeal stands dismissed. LCR be returned forthwith. Appeal dismissed.