JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against judgment dated 26-3-2004 passed by 9th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 336/2003. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Jhammanlal has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner. Conviction Sentence Under Section 376 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under : On 13-8-2003, at about 7 p.m., Parvatibai (PW-2), who is wife of Pancham Sahu (not examined) lodged First Information Report (Ex. P-5) in Police Station Gariyaband that she was residing in village Ghutkunawapara and was working as a labourer. Her daughter prosecutrix (PW-1) was studying in 6th standard, but due to her being mentally retarded, her study was discontinued. On 13-8-2003, at about 10 a.m., Parvatibai (PW-2) had gone to the field. Other two children had gone to the school. Prosecutrix (PW-1) was alone at home. When Parvatibai (PW-2) returned home at about 1:30 p.m., prosecutrix (PW-1) was weeping. On being asked, prosecutrix (PW-1) told that the appellant entered the house by jumping the wall and said that he will commit sexual intercourse. On being refused, the appellant, having caught hand of prosecutrix (PW-1), took her to Kotha and started pressing her breasts. Prosecutrix (PW-1) shouted. The appellant gagged her mouth, took her to another room, removed her underwear, caused her to lay down, committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and fled from there. On this Parvatibai (PW-2) called villagers Sarjuram (PW-4) and Chainsingh. They also inquired from prosecutrix (PW-1). Prosecutrix (PW-1) narrated the incident to them also. Since prosecutrix (PW-1) was mentally retarded, the FIR (Ex. P-5) was lodged by Parvatibai (PW-2). Prosecutrix (PW-1) was sent to Community Health Centre, Gariyaband for medical examination vide Ex. P-9A. Dr. B. Bara (PW-6) examined prosecutrix (PW-1) and gave her report (Ex. P-9), in which, she found that hymen of prosecutrix (PW-1) was ruptured. She opined that intercourse was performed with prosecutrix (PW-1). She also prepared two slides of vaginal swab of prosecutrix (PW-1). The appellant was also sent for medical examination vide Ex. P-15. In further investigation, spot-maps (Ex. P-3 and P-4) were prepared. Marksheet of prosecutrix (PW-1) was seized vide Ex. P-7. Underwear of the appellant was seized vide Ex. P-8. She opined that intercourse was performed with prosecutrix (PW-1). She also prepared two slides of vaginal swab of prosecutrix (PW-1). The appellant was also sent for medical examination vide Ex. P-15. In further investigation, spot-maps (Ex. P-3 and P-4) were prepared. Marksheet of prosecutrix (PW-1) was seized vide Ex. P-7. Underwear of the appellant was seized vide Ex. P-8. Sealed packet was seized from Constable Dhaniram Netam vide Ex. P-13. Seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for examination vide Ex. P-16. The appellant was arrested vide Ex. P-15. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gariyaband, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Raipur, from where it was received on transfer by 9th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 3. Shri S. B. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated by prosecutrix (PW-1). The evidence of prosecutrix (PW-1) is not trustworthy. Her testimony is full of contradictions. Therefore, it is not safe to rely upon her evidence. Hence, the appellant deserves acquittal. 4. On the contrary, Shri Vinay Harit, learned Deputy Advocate General with Smt. Madhunisha Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant do not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. Having heard rival contentions of the parties, I have perused the record of Sessions Trial No. 336/2003. The conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of prosecutrix (PW-1). 6. Prosecutrix (PW-1) deposed that on the date of incident, at about 11 a.m., she was alone at home. Her mother and father had gone to the field for agriculture work. Her younger brother had gone to the school. At that time, the appellant entered her house by jumping the wall, caught her, caused her to fall down, gagged her mouth, removed her underwear, laid down over her body, inserted his penis into her vagina and committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, the appellant fled from there. She further deposed that at about 12 noon, her mother Parvatibai (PW-2) returned home. Her elder brother also returned home from the school. She narrated the incident to them. Thereafter, the appellant fled from there. She further deposed that at about 12 noon, her mother Parvatibai (PW-2) returned home. Her elder brother also returned home from the school. She narrated the incident to them. She further deposed that Parvatibai (PW-2) called villagers Sarjuram (PW-4) and Chainsingh. They also inquired about the incident from her. She narrated the incident to them also. 7. Parvatibai (PW-2) deposed that prosecutrix (PW-1) is her daughter. Prosecutrix (PW-1) was aged about 14 years. On the date of incident, she had gone to the field. Her son Yogeshwar had gone to the field to call her. She returned home and saw that prosecutrix (PW-1) was weeping. On being asked, prosecutrix (PW-1) told that the appellant entered the house by jumping the wall and committed sexual intercourse with her. She further deposed that she had gone to Sarjuram (PW-4) and Chainsingh and called them to her house. They also inquired about the incident from prosecutrix (PW-1). Prosecutrix (PW-1) narrated the incident to them also. 8. Sarjuram (PW-4) deposed that Parvatibai (PW-2) had come to call him to her house. He had gone to her house and inquired prosecutrix (PW-1) about the incident. Prosecutrix (PW-1) had narrated him the incident. 9. Prosecutrix (PW-1) deposed that she had gone to police station along with her mother Parvatibai (PW-2). Parvatibai (PW-2) lodged the FIR (Ex. P-5)in Police Station Gariyaband. Parvatibai (PW-2) deposed that prosecutrix (PW-1) was mentally retared, therefore, the FIR (Ex. P-5) was lodged by her. A. S. I. S. R. Kosariya (PW-7) also deposed that the FIR (Ex. P-5) was lodged by Parvatibai (PW-2) on 13-8-2003. He further deposed that he had sent prosecutrix (PW-1) to CHC, Gariyaband for medical examination vide Ex. P-9A. 10. Dr. B. Bara (PW-6) deposed that she examined prosecutrix (PW-1) and gave her report (Ex. P-9), in which, she found that breasts of prosecutrix (PW-1) were not fully developed and she was mentally retarded. On internal examination, she found that her hymen was ruptured and sexual intercourse was performed with her. 11. In Mohd. Imran Khan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2012 Cr. L. J. 693 (SC) : (AIR 2012 SC (Cri) 5), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows : Evidence of Prosecutrix : 15. On internal examination, she found that her hymen was ruptured and sexual intercourse was performed with her. 11. In Mohd. Imran Khan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2012 Cr. L. J. 693 (SC) : (AIR 2012 SC (Cri) 5), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows : Evidence of Prosecutrix : 15. It is a trite law that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person’s lust. The prosecutrix stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness as she suffers from emotional injury. Therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called Evidence Act), nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 of Evidence Act and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. The Court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations. Rape is not merely a physical assault, rather it often distracts the whole personality of the victim. The Court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations. Rape is not merely a physical assault, rather it often distracts the whole personality of the victim. The rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female and, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and in such cases, non examination even of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, particularly where the witnesses had not seen the commission of the offence. (Vide : State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, AIR 1990 SC 658 : (1990 Cri LJ 889); State of U. P. v. Pappu alias Yunus & Anr. AIR 2005 SC 1248 : (2004 AIR SCW 6563);and Vijay alias Chinee v. State of M. P. (2010) 8 SCC 191 ) : (AIR 2011 SC (Cri) 940 : 2010 AIR SCW 5510). Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that statement of prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The Court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. 12. In the instant case, prosecutrix (PW-1) specifically deposed that the appellant entered her house, caught her, caused her to fall down, removed her underwear and committed sexual intercourse with her. In cross examination, in paragraph 5, she deposed that when her younger brother, aged about 8-9 years, returned home from the school, she narrated the incident to him. In paragraph 6, she further stated that when her mother Parvatibai (PW-2) returned home, she narrated the incident to her also. Thereafter, Parvatibai (PW-2) went to Sarjuram (PW-4) and Chainsingh to call them at her house. Sarjuram (PW-4) and Chainsingh came her house and inquired her about the incident. She narrated the incident to them also. 13. The evidence of prosecutrix (PW-1) is duly corroborated by the evidence of Parvatibai (PW-2), Sarjuram (PW-4) and medical evidence. 14. In the instant case, the appellant took the plea of total denial in Section 313 Cr. P. C. When question Nos. 4 to 6 were put to the appellant, he simply answered that it is wrong. The appellant has not examined any witness in his defence. 14. In the instant case, the appellant took the plea of total denial in Section 313 Cr. P. C. When question Nos. 4 to 6 were put to the appellant, he simply answered that it is wrong. The appellant has not examined any witness in his defence. A question was put to him as to whether he wishes to say anything in his defence, he replied that on the date of incident, he was not present in the village and had gone outside to earn livelihood, he was falsely implicated, he was not acquainted with prosecutrix (PW-1). The appellant took specific defence of alibi, but he did not examine any witness in his defence. How the appellant has falsely been implicated has not been explained by him. Prosecutrix (PW-1) specifically deposed that the appellant entered her house and committed sexual intercourse with her. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that he has falsely been involved in the instant case by prosecutrix (PW-1) is not acceptable. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the appellant that he has falsely been implicated in the case. 15. The evidence of prosecutrix (PW-1) is cogent, reliable and can be based for conviction of the appellant. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under Section 376 IPC is based on due appreciation of the evidence on record. Therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 16. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. He shall surrender before the trial Court forthwith to serve remaining part of the sentence, if any. Appeal dismissed.