JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.(Oral) This Criminal Jail Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15-7-2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 94 of 2008, State versus Arvind, whereby the accused has been convicted U/S 376/511 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo three and half years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further two months imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 26-2-2008 Ravindra Kumar lodged written report at P.S. Rishikesh to the effect that today i.e. on 26-2-2008 at about 2 p.m. his daughter Hina aged about 15 years was staying at her house all alone. Accused Arvind, a relative of Smt. Bala, threw a scissor from the roof to the Varanda of complainant and thereupon his daughter came out and Arvind came down from the roof and went inside the house of complainant and seeing his daughter alone, he carried her in the room and he started taking off her clothes and attempted to commit rape upon her. At this his daughter pushed him and raised alarm and during this process his daughter received abrasions on her neck by the hand of Arvind. Hearing alarm raised by his daughter, his neighbour Rajesh Kumar, and the complainant rushed to the spot and pushed opened the door which was closed from inside and these witnesses had seen that Arvind had thrown his daughter on the cot and he was holding her by the neck and was attempting to outrage her modesty. These persons rescued the girl from the clutches of the accused and the accused with the help of other villagers was brought to Police Station. 3. On the basis of written report, Ext. Ka.1, chick F.I.R. Ext. Ka.4 was prepared and a case crime No. 64/2008 U/S 376/511 I.P.C. was registered against the accused. The copy of G.D. of registration of the case is Ext. Ka.5. 4. The victim was medically examined by the doctor and medical report Ext. Ka.2 was prepared. The doctor also prepared supplementary report Ext. Ka.3. The Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site-plan Ext. Ka.8 and after completing the investigation, charge sheet Ext. Ka.9 was submitted against the accused. 5. The Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh vide order dated 18-8-2008 committed the case to the court of Sessions. 6. Ka.2 was prepared. The doctor also prepared supplementary report Ext. Ka.3. The Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site-plan Ext. Ka.8 and after completing the investigation, charge sheet Ext. Ka.9 was submitted against the accused. 5. The Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh vide order dated 18-8-2008 committed the case to the court of Sessions. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, framed charge U/S 376/511 I.P.C. against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. The prosecution to prove the guilt of accused examined P.W.1, prosecutrix, P.W.2, Ravindra Kumar, P.W.3, Rajesh Saharan, P.W.4, Dr. Beena Rana, P.W.5, H.C. 148 Lakhan Lal and P.W.6, S.I. Yogesh Singh, investigating officer. 8. The accused in his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and alleged that there was quarrel at the house of Hina and when he went there, a false case has been concocted against him. However, no evidence was adduced in defence. 9. The learned trial court after considering the evidence on record, and hearing the counsel for parties found the accused guilty of offence U/S 376/511 I.P.C. and accordingly passed sentence against him. 10. Feeling aggrieved the accused/appellant has preferred this appeal from jail. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The accused/appellant has been held guilty by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, for the offence of attempt to commit rape upon the prosecutrix. P.W.1, prosecutrix is the important witness of the incident. She has given a categorical statement that on 26-2-2008 at about 2 p.m. when she was all alone at her house, she heard sound and she saw that accused Arvind came in her house from the roof and he dragged her in the room and used force. He started putting off her cloths and attempted to outrage her modesty and when she cried, her father along with Rajesh came in the room. These persons tried to rescue her from the clutches of the accused. She also deposed that if they had not come at the relevant point of time, the accused would have outraged her modesty. Thereafter her father and Rajesh brought the accused to the police station. In the cross examination this witness has stated that the accused had remained in her house for five minutes when her father reached the house. She also deposed that if they had not come at the relevant point of time, the accused would have outraged her modesty. Thereafter her father and Rajesh brought the accused to the police station. In the cross examination this witness has stated that the accused had remained in her house for five minutes when her father reached the house. She further stated that there was grumbling and scrambling between her and the accused and she as well as the accused had sustained abrasions. 13. P.W.2, Ravindra Kumar father of the prosecutrix has stated on oath that the incident had occurred at 2 p.m. on 26th February 2008. He was in his neighbour’s house. His daughter was inside the room, at that time when Arvind came to his house and when he heard the cries of his daughter, he and Rajesh entered the house and saw that Arvind was attempting to commit rape upon her daughter. They caught hold of Arvind and brought him outside the house and thereafter brought the accused to the police station. He further deposed that he had got prepared the written report by Ashok Kumar and made his signature on it and handed it over in the police station. This witness has proved the written report Ext. Ka.1. This witness has been cross examined at length but nothing incriminating has come out from him, which may render his statement as unreliable. 14. P.W.3, Rajesh Saharan also fully supported the statement of P.W.2, Ravindra Kumar. He has deposed that when they reached the room of prosecutrix, the accused had laid her down on the bed and he had opened his pant and was opening the salwar of Hina. They separated the accused from the girl and brought the accused to the police station with the help of other villagers. This witness is an independent witness and no suggestion has been given to this witness also as to why he would give false statement against the accused. 15. The prosecution case is further corroborated by the medical evidence. The prosecutrix was medically examined by the doctor on 26.2.2008 and P.W.4, Dr. Beena Rana has found following injuries on her person:- 1. Multiple echimosis abrasion present in front of neck. 2. One linear abrasion about 2 cm present in front of neck. 3. One linear abrasion present on right side of neck about 2.5 cm. 16. The prosecutrix was medically examined by the doctor on 26.2.2008 and P.W.4, Dr. Beena Rana has found following injuries on her person:- 1. Multiple echimosis abrasion present in front of neck. 2. One linear abrasion about 2 cm present in front of neck. 3. One linear abrasion present on right side of neck about 2.5 cm. 16. On examination of private part no injury was seen, hymen was intact, no inflammation of vaginal wall and no bleeding on touch. Vaginal swab was taken by match stick and two slides were sent for pathological examination and for confirmation of age x-ray of wrist elbow and knee joint was advised. In the opinion of the doctor no definite opinion could be given regarding rape and vagina was admitting two fingers with difficulty. 17. In the supplementary report it was opined that no spermatozoa was seen in the slides of swab and the age of the girl was given about 18 years. 18. Thus, from the medical evidence it is quite obvious that no rape was committed upon the girl, but she had sustained abrasions on her neck. In the statement of prosecutrix, and her father P.W.2, Ravindra Kumar it has come that the accused was holding the prosecutrix by her neck and she had sustained abrasions by the hand of the accused. 19. The glaring aspect of the case is that the accused was caught by P.W.2, Ravindra Kumar and P.W.3, Rajesh Saharan and he was brought to the police station with the help of other villagers from the place of occurrence. The accused in his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C. also admitted this fact that he had gone to the house of prosecutrix as there was some noise, but he was falsely implicated in the false case. However, no reason has been shown as to why the prosecution witnesses would have deposed falsely against the accused. No father would falsely implicate a person at the stake of chastity of his daughter. The evidence of P.W.1, prosecutrix, P.W.2, Ravindra Kumar and P.W.3, Rajesh Saharan is fully convincing and trustworthy. 20. Thus, from the evidence of witnesses of facts, coupled with the medical evidence, the offence of attempt to commit rape by the accused upon the prosecutrix is fully proved. I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court. 21. 20. Thus, from the evidence of witnesses of facts, coupled with the medical evidence, the offence of attempt to commit rape by the accused upon the prosecutrix is fully proved. I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court. 21. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is affirmed. 22. The accused/appellant is already in jail and he shall be detained in jail to serve out his remaining sentence passed by the trial court.