JUDGMENT 1. By the judgment dated 9.6.2006 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, Bhilwara convicted the accused appellant for an offence punishable under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life term imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and further to undergo six months simple imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fine. 2. Before coming to the facts of the case it shall be appropriate to mention that with a view to not disclose identity of the victim minor girl and her mother, instead of giving their full names, we have used their abbreviation only, as and where required. 3. In brief, facts of the case are that on 20.1.2006 Smt. "JC" wife of the accused, aged about 35 years, made a statement before the in-charge of Police Station Sadar, Bhilwara, that she entered into a wedlock with Unkar Singh in the year 1992, as a consequent thereto gave birth to two girl child and one boy. After death of Unkar Singh she remarried with her neighbour Nahar Singh. They were residing at Mandalia and on 19.1.2006 she went to work at factory at about 7.45 AM, and on return to home in evening, she found that her daughter minor "S", aged 12 years, was weeping. On asking, she stated that Nahar Singh called her in a room and then committed rape. The girl was having abrasions on her private parts and the underwear worn by her was having blood stains. The entire incident then was disclosed to the persons living in neighbourhood. On search Nahar Singh was found at Kalyanpura under intoxication. 4. On basis of the information aforesaid, Criminal Case No. 17/2006 was lodged and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, a police report was filed before the competent Court alleging commission of an offence by the accused, punishable under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. The case then was committed to the Court of Sessions and after hearing counsel for the parties a charge for commission of the offence punishable under Section 376 Indian Penal Code was framed. On denial of the same, trial commenced as desired. 5. The prosecution supported its case with the aid of 13 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-13) and the documents prepared during the course of investigation. An opportunity was given to the accused appellant to explain the adverse circumstances available in prosecution evidence. On denial of the same, trial commenced as desired. 5. The prosecution supported its case with the aid of 13 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-13) and the documents prepared during the course of investigation. An opportunity was given to the accused appellant to explain the adverse circumstances available in prosecution evidence. The accused appellant termed the prosecution evidence as false. As per him, he was implicated in the criminal case due to the reason that he saw his wife Smt. "JC" in objectionable condition with one Shri Balu. He also got himself examined in defence as DW-1. 6. PW-1 minor "S" is the victim and is of about 12 years of age. As per the statement made by her, on the fateful day she was at home and was playing with her other brother and sister outside the home. Accused Nahar Singh called her inside the room and then committed rape. This girl in quite specific terms stated that she suffered acute pain and in evening she detailed the entire incident to her mother, who then started weeping and also informed other neighbours about the ill-happening. This witness was not cross-examined by or on behalf of the accused appellant. 7. PW-2 Smt. "JC", mother of minor S" and wife of accused appellant stated that on 19.1.2006 she went to factory for work and on returning to home at about 5.35 PM, she found her daughter minor "S" weeping. On asking, minor "S" stated that her father Nahar Singh committed rape with her. This witness further stated that minor "S" is the daughter of her first husband Unkar Singh but was living with Nahar Singh being her daughter. This witness also stated that after the incident Nahar Singh absconded with his own son, but was fetched at Kalyanpura under intoxication. This witness was also not cross-examined by or on behalf of the accused appellant. 8. PW-3 Udai Singh and PW-4 Sardar Singh are neighbours of PW-2 Smt. "JC" and as per these witnesses, in the evening of the incident at about 6.00 PM they heard crying of "JC", who on asking disclosed that Nahar Singh committed rape with her daughter minor "S". 9. PW-7 Raju son of Amarchand stated that at about 4-5 months earlier he was sitting on a hotel situated in village where Smt. "JC" came and stated that Nahar Singh committed rape with her daughter. 9. PW-7 Raju son of Amarchand stated that at about 4-5 months earlier he was sitting on a hotel situated in village where Smt. "JC" came and stated that Nahar Singh committed rape with her daughter. A search for Nahar Singh then was made. However, his friend Madan Singh informed that let an information be first given to the police. Accordingly, an information was given at Police Station Hamirgarh, but the same was not entertained as the spot of occurrence was within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sadar, Bhilwara. A telephonic call then was made at Police Outpost within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sadar, Bhilwara wherefrom a police team came and that arrested Nahar Singh. 10. PW-8 Shri Vishnu Dutt Sharma stated that he examined minor "S" physically and radiologically and found her age about 7-9 years. 11. PW-13 Dr. Vijay Laxmi made medical examination of minor "S" and submitted the report Ex.P-6. As per this witness no external injury was available on the body of minor "S". No sperms were also found in the swab taken, thus, no definite opinion about commission of rape could had been given. 12. PW-10 Puran Singh being Investigating Officer, narrated all the actions and steps taken during the course of investigation. 13. While explaining the adverse circumstances the accused appellant stated that he was falsely implicated in the case as his wife Smt. "JC" was found in objectionable condition with Balu Kharol. 14. The accused was examined in defence as DW-1. This witness stated that he was fifth husband of "JC" who is a woman of easy virtues. The lady was also having two daughters of about 22 years of age and they are living separately. Minor "S" was living with him from her very young age being daughter of "JC" and her marriage was solemnized on 'Devuthani Igyaras' with Gopal son of Bherulal Kharol resident of Aasind. As per this witness "JC" was having illicit relations with Balu and, therefore, she falsely implicated him in the case concerned. As per this witness minor "S" was acting under instructions of her mother, thus, made a false statement. 15. After examining the evidence available, learned trial Court held the accused appellant guilty for the charged offence and sentenced him accordingly. 16. As per this witness minor "S" was acting under instructions of her mother, thus, made a false statement. 15. After examining the evidence available, learned trial Court held the accused appellant guilty for the charged offence and sentenced him accordingly. 16. In appeal, the argument advanced by counsel for the accused appellant is that the medical evidence in no manner supports the prosecution story, therefore, the accused appellant deserves to be acquitted. In alternative, counsel for the appellant urged that the sentence awarded is highly excessive than the guilty established. 17. While defending the conviction recorded and sentence awarded, learned Public Prosecutor stated that adequate evidence is available on record to establish the charge, therefore, no wrong is committed by the trial Court in convicting tire accused. With regard to quantum of the term of imprisonment awarded, learned Public Prosecutor states that the victim girl was a minor one and as a matter of fact she was daughter of the accused appellant, as such looking to severity of the offence the sentence awarded is in consonance to the guilty established. 18. Heard counsel for the appellant as well as the learned, Public Prosecutor and also examined the record available. 19. Before coming on merits, counsel for the appellant at the threshold submitted that the entire trial was conducted in utter violation of principles of natural justice as no legal assistance was provided to the accused appellant. It is asserted that the Court should have provided services of a legal practitioner to the accused to defend himself, but the Court proceeded with the trial without doing so. 20. The statement made at Bar by counsel for the appellant as a matter of fact is ill-founded. From perusal of the order sheets of the trial Court it reveals that one Shri Ladulal Khatik, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the accused on 18.3.2006 and accepted a copy of the police report. On 5.4.2006 Shri Ladulal Khatik was present and the matter was adjourned for 5.5.2006 for framing charges. On 5.5.2006 charge was framed after hearing learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused. Subsequent thereto nobody put in appearance on behalf of the accused. The accused never objected the same and participated in trial process. An application was moved by the accused on 7.6.2006 to provide assistance of an advocate, however, the evidence was already recorded by the Court prior to it. Subsequent thereto nobody put in appearance on behalf of the accused. The accused never objected the same and participated in trial process. An application was moved by the accused on 7.6.2006 to provide assistance of an advocate, however, the evidence was already recorded by the Court prior to it. Be that as it may, the Court on 7-6.2006 itself accepted the application aforesaid and allowed him to avail services of a lawyer. Shri Bholuram Kanjar, Advocate, appeared on his behalf and argued the case on 9.6.2006, the day on which the judgment impugned was passed by' the trial Court. The facts noticed above clearly indicates that the accused was having assistance of an Advocate, though he did not appear to defend the accused after 5.5.2006. The accused subsequent thereto participated in trial without any objection. The Court provided assistance of air Advocate on the same day', the accused claimed for that. 21. As per counsel for the appellant though PW-1 minor "S" has deposed against the accused but her testimony' is not trustworthy in view of the fact that as per the medical evidence no external injury was available on her body' and no definite opinion was given about commission of rape by PW-13 Dr. Vijay Laxmi. The oral evidence adduced is not having adequate corroboration which was necessary as PW-1 minor "S" was living with her mother Smt. "JC", as such chances of her being tutored are quite wide and obvious. 22. Pondering upon the entire evidence available, we do not find any merit in this submission too. Suffice to mention that the statements of PW-1 minor "S" were drawn by the investigating agency as per provisions of Section 161 Cr.P.C. on the day, First Information Report was lodged. She narrated all the relevant facts. Her statements as per provisions of Section 164 Cr.P.C. were also recorded on 23.1.2006 itself by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhilwara East, Bhilwara, wherein too she stated that Nahar Singh called him in room and then committed rape. Statements of Smt. "JC" too were recorded as per provisions of Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 23.1.2006 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhilwara East, Bhilwara and she also narrated all the facts which are having no contradiction with the statements given by her before the Court as prosecution witness. As a matter of fact the statements given by PW-1 and PW-2. As a matter of fact the statements given by PW-1 and PW-2. as prosecution witnesses are absolutely' in consonance with the statements given under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 23. Having considered the consistent stand taken by above mentioned witnesses, we do not find any reason to disbelieve them. The other witnesses who were living in neighbourhood of PW-1 and PW-2 adequately' corroborated the subsequent events taken place. The neighbours (PW-3, 4 and 7) in quite unambiguous terms stated that in the evening of 19.1.2006 "JC" made hue and cry and also disclosed about commission of rape by Nahar Singh with minor "S". 24. True it is, medical examination report and the evidence adduced by PW-13 Dr. Vijay Laxmi is not supporting the prosecution case, but that is not of much consequence in view of the fact that the medical examination was made at least after 36 hours from taking place of ill-happening. After such lapse of time the non availability of sperms is quite obvious. Suffice to mention here that the underwear of the victim and accused were sent for serological examination and a report of that given by Forensic Science Laboratory is available on record, with a finding of availability of human semen, but we are not taking that into consideration on the count of not availing explanation from the accused about that as per provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, even by ignoring that, adequate evidence is available to negative the contention advanced. It is well settled that the evidence adduced by the prosecutrix is required to be given predominance, if that is not apparently false or unacceptable on its case. In the case in hand the consistency maintained by the prosecutrix and other corroborating prosecution witnesses is sufficient to accept the version so narrated and to hold the accused guilty. Certain allegations are made by the accused appellant while deposing in defence regarding character of Smt. "JC", but the same are having no foundation. Nothing is available on record to corroborate the facts stated by the accused appellant in defence, as such the same is not at all acceptable. In view of the discussions made above, we do not find any wrong with the finding arrived by the trial Court. 25. The alternative argument advanced by counsel for the appellant is pertaining to quantum of sentence awarded. In view of the discussions made above, we do not find any wrong with the finding arrived by the trial Court. 25. The alternative argument advanced by counsel for the appellant is pertaining to quantum of sentence awarded. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that the accused is father of a young son who requires his support, therefore, maximum-punishment should have not been awarded by the trial Court. The argument advanced deserves to be thrown at threshold in view of the fact that the accused appellant has been held guilty for commission of rape with a minor girl, who as a matter of fact was living in his custody with complete trust about her well being. Though the accused was not natural father of the victim girl, but being husband of Smt. "JC", mother of the victim, he was guardian and father of minor "S", but he misused his pious relation, authority and faith. Fie caused a serious injury to the trust reposed in him. Such an accused, therefore, does not deserve for any sympathy. We are of the opinion that looking to the existing facts and circumstances the trial Court rightly awarded life term imprisonment to the accused appellant. 26. The appeal, thus, is having no merit, hence dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******