Judgment : 1. This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment dated 21-05-2007 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for trial of Offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole in SC.No. 12 of 2000. 2. Shaik Adam, the appellant/sole accused was tried by the learned Special Judge for the charges under section 376 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 and he was ultimately acquitted of the charge under section 3 (2) (v) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 and was found guilty for the charge under section 376 of IPC convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-(Rs. Five hundred only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 3. Against the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred the present criminal appeal. 4. Heard Sri G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 5. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present criminal appeal may be stated as follows: PW-1 the victim girl was aged about 13 years on the date of the incident. PW-2 is her younger sister, who was aged about 6 years on the date of the incident. PWs 4 and 5 are the parents of the victim girl. PW-3 is a neighbour. The house of the appellant is situated adjacent to the house of PW-1. According to the prosecution on 21-12-1997 when PWs 1 and 2 were at their house, while PW-4 their mother went to church and PW-5 their father went to work in a dall mill, the appellant, who was aged about 22 years on the date of incident, entered into the house at about 12:00 noon caught hold of the hand of PW-1, dragged her to a room, laid her on the ground and committed rape on her forcibly. PW-2 the younger sister of PW-1 witnessed the incident. PW-3 the neighbour saw the appellant going away from the house of PW-1 after committing rape. After arrival of PWs 4 and 5, the parents of PW-1, she informed about the appellant committing rape on her. PW-2 also told them as to what she had witnessed. Thereafter, PWs 4 and 5 took PW-1 to Kurichedu Police Station at 23:30 hours on 21-12-1997. After arrival of PWs 4 and 5, the parents of PW-1, she informed about the appellant committing rape on her. PW-2 also told them as to what she had witnessed. Thereafter, PWs 4 and 5 took PW-1 to Kurichedu Police Station at 23:30 hours on 21-12-1997. PW-9 the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, recorded the statement of PW-1 and basing on her statement, he registered a case in Cr.No. 66 of 1997 under section 376 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989. PW-10 the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Darsi investigated into the offence and after completing investigation filed charge sheet against the appellant. 6. In the course of the trial before the learned Special Sessions Judge, the prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the appellant examined PWs 1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P9 and MOs 1 and 2. The appellant did not propose to examine any defence witness nor did he mark any document on his behalf. 7. The learned trial Court upon considering the entire evidence on record, acquitted the appellant of the offence under section 3 (2) (v) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 and found him guilty for the offence under section 376 of IPC and convicted the appellant for the said offence and sentenced him to punishment as stated above. 8. PW-1 stated in her evidence before the trial court that while she and PW-2 were at their house, the appellant on 21-12-1997 at about 12 noon came to their house, caught hold of her hand, laid her on the ground and committed rape on her. She also stated in clear terms as to how the appellant committed rape without her consent and against her will. She further stated that when she raised cries, he threatened her not to raise the cries. After committing rape, the appellant left her by threatening her that he would kill her if she reveals the incident to anybody. As per the evidence of PW-1, she was aged about 13 years on the date of incident and was studying Class-VI. 9. PW-2 the younger sister of PW-1 also spoke about the appellant coming to their house at 12 noon, catching hold of her sister, throwing her down and committing rape on her. As per the evidence of PW-1, she was aged about 13 years on the date of incident and was studying Class-VI. 9. PW-2 the younger sister of PW-1 also spoke about the appellant coming to their house at 12 noon, catching hold of her sister, throwing her down and committing rape on her. She further stated that while PW-1 was weeping, the appellant threatened PW-1 and also PW-2 not to raise cries and threatened to kill if she reveal the incident to anybody and subsequently the appellant went away from the house by opening the doors of the house. 10. However, the learned trial court by examining the entire evidence of PW-2 expressed the view that PW-2 did not directly witness the appellant committing rape, she only witnessed the appellant coming to their house and going away. 11. PW-3 stated in her deposition before the trial court that at about 12 noon on the date of incident while she was going to NSP colony on her personal work and when she reached the house of the parents of PW-1 she saw the appellant coming out of the house and PWs 1 and 2 weeping at the house. She further deposed that when she asked PWs 1 and 2 as to what happened, they narrated the incident to her. 12. The evidence of PWs 4 and 5 reveals that after they returned home, PWs 1 and 2 informed them about the incident and they took PW-1 to Kurchedu Police Station, where the police recorded the statement of PW-1 and registered a case basing on her statement. 13. PW-7 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Headquarters Hospital, Ongole. She examined PW-1 and issued Ex.P-4 wound certificate. Her evidence discloses that she did not find any external injuries on the body of PW-1 but noticed that the hymen was torn and bleeding was coming from the vaginal intrositor. She noticed vertical tear of 2/3rd inch over forchette plus minor mucosal tears on both labia minose. Her evidence further discloses that she preserved pubic hair one bottle, vaginal swabs two bottles, vaginal smears 2 glass slides, servical smears two glass slides and sent them for Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Vijayawada for analysis and FSL report and after receiving the FSL report and basing on the same she issued Ex.P6 final opinion stating that there is evidence of forcible sexual intercourse. 14. 14. PW-8 is a Civil Surgeon, Area Hospital, Narasaraopet. He worked as Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Darsi at the relevant time. His evidence shows that he examined the appellant and was of the opinion that the appellant is capable of performing sexual act. To that effect, he issued Ex.P7 certificate. 15. Basing on the above said evidence, the learned trial court convicted the appellant for the charge under section 376 of IPC and sentenced him to punishment as stated above. 16. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that in fact as per the defence version, the appellant did not commit any rape, if so happened that he witnessed somebody committing rape on PW-1, there was some enmity between the appellant and the parents of PW-1 and therefore, the appellant was falsely implicated in this case. The counsel for the appellant would submit that there were no external injuries on the body of PW-1, the prosecution also did not file any documentary evidence showing the age of PW-1 and it is quite unsafe to convict the appellant mainly relying on the evidence of PW-1 and the trial Court had erroneously convicted the appellant, and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are liable to be set aside. 17. The counsel for the appellant also relied on a decision in KRISHNA KUMAR MALIK V/s. STATE OF HARYANA((2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 61), wherein the Supreme Court held as follows “After incorporation of Section 53-A in Cr.P.C. w.e.f. 23-6-2006 it has become necessary for prosecution to go in for DNA test in such cases, facilitating prosecution to prove its case against accused – Even prior to introducing the said specific provision in Cr.P.C., prosecution could still have resorted to this procedure of getting DNA test or analysis done and matching of semen of appellant-accused with that found on undergarments of prosecutirix to make it a foolproof case. 18. But the said case before the Supreme Court was a gang rape case and victim therein was gang raped after abduction. There were so many discrepancies/admissions in the FIR, the name of the accused was not mentioned in the FIR, even though she was aware of his name instead describing him as ”gitta” (short-statured) with a beard. 19. 18. But the said case before the Supreme Court was a gang rape case and victim therein was gang raped after abduction. There were so many discrepancies/admissions in the FIR, the name of the accused was not mentioned in the FIR, even though she was aware of his name instead describing him as ”gitta” (short-statured) with a beard. 19. Considering various circumstances, the Supreme Court held about the requirement of DNA test after incorporation of Section 53-A in Cr.P.C. The facts of the present case are altogether different. The name of the appellant who is known to PW-1 is mentioned in the FIR. Therefore, the said decision cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 20. Here is a case wherein absolutely there is no evidence to the effect that there is any enmity between the appellant and PWs 4 and 5 the parents of PW-1 or between the appellant and PW-1. PW-1 was aged about 13 years on the date of incident, either PWs 1 or her parents PWs 4 and 5 are not expected to fix the appellant in a false case of rape leaving the real culprit. There must be sufficient reason for any such false implication which the appellant was unable to demonstrate before the trial court except making a bald suggestion that as he witnessed somebody coming rape on PW-1 and for that reason, he was falsely implicated in this case. If it is so, the appellant ought to have furnished the name and particulars of the person, who actually committed rape on PW-1 but he could not give any such details. Therefore, it can be considered as only a false defence. 21. As regards, the proof of age of prosecutirix PW-1 by the prosecution, it may be pointed that the prosecution came with a specific case and PW-1 also stated in her evidence that she was aged 13 years on the date of incident. The doctor, who examined PW-1 also recorded the same. There was not even a suggestion to PW-1 in the cross-examination that she was more than 13 years of age or that she attained the age in which her consent becomes material. Even it is not the defence version that the sexual intercourse took place with her consent. Further the evidence of PW-1 clearly indicates that the appellant committed sexual act forcibly against the will and consent of PW-1. Even it is not the defence version that the sexual intercourse took place with her consent. Further the evidence of PW-1 clearly indicates that the appellant committed sexual act forcibly against the will and consent of PW-1. As regards the injuries on the body of PW-1, it may be stated that the law is well settled that the absence of injuries on the person of prosecutirix does not falsify the version of the prosecutirix regarding the commission of rape. Further in the instant case, the evidence of PW-1 as well as PW-7 the doctor, who examined her discloses that hymen was torn and there were other injuries on the private parts of PW-1 and there was also profuse bleeding from the vagina of PW-1. Therefore, the absence of injuries on the other parts of the body does not falsify the version of PW-1, which is highly truthful. The evidence of PW-2 the younger sister of PW-1 corroborates the evidence of PW-1 and her evidence though it does not reveal that she witnessed the actual commission of rape, it reveals the appellant coming to the house at 12 noon, catching hold of the hand of PW-1 and dragging PW-1 and after some time fleeing away from their house. The evidence of PW-3 also reveals that at about 12 noon she saw the appellant going out of the house of PW-1 and PWs 1 and 2 weeping at their house. Her evidence further discloses that when she asked PWs 1 and 2 as to why they were weeping, they told her that the appellant committed rape on PW-1 in the absence of their parents PWs 4 and 5. The evidence of PW-3 is admissible under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act and it furnishes corroboration to the testimony of PWs 1 and 2. 22. For what all stated hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the learned Special Sessions Judge properly appreciated the evidence on record and more particularly the evidence of PW-1 and the medical evidence and rightly convicted the appellant for the charge under section 376 of IPC. 23. As regards, the sentence, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was aged about 22 years on the date of incident, he has mother, who is a T.B. patient, wife and three children and that he was the only earning member of the family. 23. As regards, the sentence, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was aged about 22 years on the date of incident, he has mother, who is a T.B. patient, wife and three children and that he was the only earning member of the family. It is also further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been in prison in connection with this case, nearly for four years and ten months and the sentence may be reduced by taking a lenient view. I am of the opinion that the circumstances submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be said to be mitigating circumstances and they are not relevant for taking a lenient view to reduce the punishment. Here is a case, wherein rape was committed against a girl, aged 13 years while her younger sister aged 6 years was at the house and the parents were away from the house. The learned Special Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-(Rs. Five hundred only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge does not deserve to be reduced by recording any special reasons. 24. For the forgoing reasons, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge for trial of Offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Ongole, against the appellant for the charge under section 376 of IPC are confirmed. 25. In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.