JUDGMENT Arup Kumar Goswami , J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7.5.2012 passed by the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Sessions Case No. 100/2011 convicting the accused appellant Uttam Gowala @ Babu under section 376(2)(f) IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine he would undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 3(three) months. Based on an Ejahar (Ext. 6) lodged by one Ranju Ghatowar (PW-2) with the Officer-In-Charge of Numaligarh Police Outpost on 12.4.2011 asserting that one "X" aged about 11 years was raped by a unknown person while she was collecting firewood at Letekujan Tea Garden at about 3.30 pm on 11.4.2011. Following GDE No. 308 was made and Golaghat P.S. Case No. 188/2011 under Section 376(f) IPC was registered by the Golaghat Police on 12.4.2011. It was mentioned in the ejahar that the delay in lodging the ejahar was occurred owing to admission of the girl to a Hospital. 2. Immediately thereafter the police started investigation and recorded statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. Statements of victim girl was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.: she was also medically examined. During the course of investigation, confessional statement of the accused under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 18.4.2011. Thereafter, a Charge-sheet was submitted under Section 376(f) IPC. On committal of the case to his file the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat, transferred the case to the Court of Asstt. Sessions Judge Golaghat for disposal, wherein Sessions case No. 100/2011 was registered. 3. The learned court below framed charge U/S. 376(2)(f). of the IPC against the accused. When the charges were read out to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and demanded a trial. 4. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses while the defence examined none. The victim girl was examined as PW-1. The accused was examined u/s. 313 of the Cr.P.C. 5. Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant and Mr. H. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P. Assam. 6. Mr. Biswas has laid two fold submissions during the course of his arguments. The victim girl was examined as PW-1. The accused was examined u/s. 313 of the Cr.P.C. 5. Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant and Mr. H. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P. Assam. 6. Mr. Biswas has laid two fold submissions during the course of his arguments. His first submission is that the evidence of PW-8, the doctor, who examined the victim girl and opined that there was no sign of recent sexual intercourse, belies the prosecution case that the PW-1 was subjected to rape by the accused. His second submission is that since no TIP was conducted and the accused was identified only in the Court, his conviction is not sustainable in law. 7. On the other hand, Mr. H. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P. Assam submits that the evidence on record has considerably establishes the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Ranjit Hazarika -vs.- State of Assam reported in (1998) 8 SCC 635 to contend that even in a case where doctor has opined that no rape was appeared to have been committed, cannot throw out an otherwise cogent and trustworthy evidence of the prosecutrix. With regard to not holding of a TIP, Mr. Sarma submits that the accused has voluntarily confessed his guilt; he was also examined as PW. 8. As there was no dispute to the identity of the accused and therefore, nonholding of a TIP, does not, vitiate the impugned judgment in the facts and circumstance of the case. 9. The evidence of PW-1 is to the effect that on the fateful day Sumina Bauri (PW-7) and she had gone to Leteku tea garden for collecting firewood and were encountered there by the accused, whom she identified in the dock. At first she was asked by the accused a little water to quench his thirst that was given to him. Thereafter the accused asked for a knife. Thereafter the accused disrupted her and sexually assaulted. As a result of which blood started to come out from her vaginal tract. When she cried, the accused also threatened her if she divulges the incident to anybody. In the meantime, PW-7 left the place out of fear. Going back at home, she narrated the incident to her mother (PW-3). Thereafter she was taken to Golaghat for treatment. As a result of which blood started to come out from her vaginal tract. When she cried, the accused also threatened her if she divulges the incident to anybody. In the meantime, PW-7 left the place out of fear. Going back at home, she narrated the incident to her mother (PW-3). Thereafter she was taken to Golaghat for treatment. In cross examination she has stated that she did not know the accused person. PW-2 is the informant, he stated that the victim was about 10 years old. P.W. 3 is the mother of the victim. Who reaffirmed and reiterated the version given by the PW-1, asserting that the blood was coming out of the vagina of PW-1. PW-4 is the brother-in-law of the informant and his evidence is not material as he is a reported witness. PW 5 & 6 are also reported witnesses. PW-7 is the other minor girl who was with the victim girl, when the incident occurred. She deposed that she witnessed the occurrence but stated that she was threatened if she make any "hulla". P.W. 9 is the younger brother of his sister-in-law. He stated that one day the accused had come to his house and informed him that he raped a girl of Letekujan garden. PW-9 took the accused to Golaghat Thana and was made him to surrender. PW-10, who is the Chowkidar of the Letekujan Tea Garden did not contribute much to the prosecution case. PW-11 is the Magistrate, who recorded statements of the accused under Section 164 Cr.P.C. PW-12 is a stranger, who had seen the accused in the Golaghat Thana and heard accused saying to the police that he had committed rape. PW-13 is the Investigating Officer. His evidence is more or less important in character. He had also proved the Ejahar as Ext. 6, sketch map of the place of occurrence at Ext. 7, the charge-sheet as Ext. 9. In cross examination he had stated that he did not seize anything in connection with the case and also did not send the victim's clothes to the laboratory for examination. 10. PW-9, in his cross-examination has stated that he did not say anything about the incident, indicating thereby that he did not have any personal knowledge of the incident. 9. In cross examination he had stated that he did not seize anything in connection with the case and also did not send the victim's clothes to the laboratory for examination. 10. PW-9, in his cross-examination has stated that he did not say anything about the incident, indicating thereby that he did not have any personal knowledge of the incident. However, he was not subjected to a cross-examination with regard to the accused came to his residence and stated that he had committed rape to the victim. The cross-examination of the PW-11 was only to the effect as to whether at the time of recording the statement of the accused, security men were present before the accused. 11. PW-8, Dr. Guna Kr. Doley, who examined the victim girl. The relevant part of his opinion on the examination of the victim girl is as follows: The age of the victim is below 18 years. No any sign of recent sexual intercourse. Injury found on the posterior vaginal wall with active bleeding. After clinical examination, it is opined that the age of the victim girl is in between 10 to 11 years. Ext-1 is the medial report and Ext. 1(1) is my signature. 12. From the evidence of the PW-8 it appears that he has opined that there was no sign of recent sexual intercourse, however, he found injury on the posterior vaginal wall with active bleeding. His opinion was that the victim girl was in between 10/11 years. For the reason not known, PW-8, in his opinion, has not indicated or offered any opinion with regard to the injury found on the posterior vaginal wall with active bleeding. Medical evidence to the extent of bleeding from vagina is corroborated by the evidence of the PW-1 and PW-3. Therefore, it is logical and rational to whom, though not opined that the PW-8, the posterior was caused of bleeding of vagina wall may have been due to sexual assault upon 10 years old girl. The evidence of PW-1 has not impinged in any manner by the defence as has been held in Ranjit Hazarika -vs.- State of Assam (supra). The medical opinion cannot be thrown out an otherwise cogent and trustworthy evidence of the prosecutrix. The evidence of PW-1 has not impinged in any manner by the defence as has been held in Ranjit Hazarika -vs.- State of Assam (supra). The medical opinion cannot be thrown out an otherwise cogent and trustworthy evidence of the prosecutrix. It also appears that the evidence of PW-8 is somehow vague and is difficult to reconcile his assertion that there was no sign of recent sexual intercourse, with the observation that the injury was found on the posterior vaginal wall with active bleeding. In view of above, this Court has no hesitation but to hold that it is the accused who raped the victim. 13. As has been noticed earlier, though Mr. Biswas has sought to raise the point that the identification of the accused appellant having not been done in accordance with law, the accused at no point of time, had ever retracted his confession. His confessional statement reads as under: At about 4 p.m. last Monday I had gone to take the cattles home from the jungles near our house. I had consumed 'laopani' (country liquor) that day. I was under intoxication as I had taken much of it. In the jungle, I saw two girls collecting firewood. I did not know them. Nor did I know their age. I raped one of the two girls. After that I left the place. I regret my action. 14. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused only stated that he did not remember whether he had made a confessional statement. The evidence of PW-9 only on which there was no cross-examination what he has name, also settled the is sued of TIP. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, PW-1 identifying the accused in Court would not vitiate the prosecution case. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly this appeal is dismissed. Send down the LCRs. Before parting with the record, this Court record its appreciation to the assistance rendered by Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned Amicus Curiae and decide to offer him his usual fee, however, he candidly refused to accept the same. Appeal dismissed