Judgment V.K. Bist, J. This appeal has been filed by the accused/appellant directly from jail, through Superintendent of Jail, District Jail, Almora against the judgment and order dated 22.02.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Champawat in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2006 ‘State vs. Shiv Ram’, whereby accused/ appellant Shiv Ram has been convicted under Sections 376 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 376 I.P.C., and in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment for two years and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 506(2) I.P.C. It was directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The facts, leading to the appeal, are that on 18.08.2006 the victim Km. Kamla, aged 14 years daughter of Shiv Ram (accused) lodged a report (Ext. A-1) with the Kotwali, Champawat with the assertion that she is the daughter of the accused Shiv Ram. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that she is being sexually assaulted and being raped by her father since five months and rape has been committed five times. It is further alleged that by threatening her, the accused has committed rape upon her 15-20 days before. On being resisted by her and her mother, she was also beaten and threatened to be killed. On account of jittery and in order to hide herself, the complainant took shelter in jungle, in trees and in the village. To protect herself, though with acute difficulty, with the help of well-wishers of the village she lodged the written report. On the basis of report, a case crime no. 245 of 2006 was registered and an F.I.R. (Ext. A-5) was lodged against the accused Shiv Ram under Section 376/506 I.P.C. and an entry was made in the General Diary (Ext. A-6). Investigation of the case was taken up by the S.H.O., namely, R.S. Toliya (PW-9) who during investigation, recorded statements of the witnesses and after making spot inspection, prepared site plan. On 19.08.2009 at 7:45 p.m., medical examination of Km. Kamla was conducted by PW-4 Dr. Prabha Joshi at Public Health Centre, Champawat. The doctor in medical examination (Ext. A-3) found that there was no injury over thigh and ext. On 19.08.2009 at 7:45 p.m., medical examination of Km. Kamla was conducted by PW-4 Dr. Prabha Joshi at Public Health Centre, Champawat. The doctor in medical examination (Ext. A-3) found that there was no injury over thigh and ext. genitalia, no secretion and blood over genitalia was found, two fingers can be introduced easily on P/V examination without pain or discomfort. She found menstruating female LMP-25 days back. She opined that the victim was habitual to sexual intercourse. The victim was referred to District Hospital, Pithoragarh for confirmation of age by X-ray device. Vaginal smear slide was given for examination in District Hospital, Pithoragarh. PW-6 Dr. Narendra Sharma, Pathologist conducted pathological examination of the slides. In his report, the Pathologist mentioned that after staining and examination of the smear, he found number of epithelial cells visible in both the smears. Only 1-2 dead spermatozoa were visible in the whole smear. 3. Statements of the Km. Kamla-the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pati, District Champawat on 22.08.2006. In her statement, she stated that about 5-6 months before, date of which is not known, her father first time committed rape upon her in the jungle of Khola. At the time when the incident was caused, she had gone to jungle alognwith her father for cutting grass. Suddenly her father caught hold of her and forcefully torn her clothes. When she resisted, she was beaten and was raped. The incident took place near about 8:00-9:00 a.m. and nobody was there at the site. Her father has forcefully committed rape five times upon her till 22.08.2006 and she apprehends that in case she returns her home, she will again be compelled and subjected to sexual assault and be murdered. Her mother is well acquainted with the fact, but besides being persuaded by her mother, her father ignores and beats her mother. At present, she is residing with Keshav Ram, her cousin, but he is not intending to keep her with him. She requested to provide security and facility for managing her further education. She determined not to return back to her father’s house. 4. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial on 12.10.2006 under Section 209 Cr.P.C. 5. She determined not to return back to her father’s house. 4. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial on 12.10.2006 under Section 209 Cr.P.C. 5. Learned Sessions Judge, Champawat after hearing the parties on 23.02.2007 framed the charge of offence punishable under Section 376 and 506(2) I.P.C. against the appellant/accused Shiv Ram. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, got examined PW-1 Km. Kamla Devi-the victim, PW-2 Keshav Ram, uncle of the victim, PW-3 Smt. Sona Devi- mother of the victim, PW-4 Prabha Joshi, Medical Officer who conducted medical examination of the victim, PW-5 Kamla Deve, aunty of the victim, PW-6 Dr. Narendra Sharma, Pathologist, PW-7 Constable 90 Naresh Kumar, who prepared the Chik Information Report and made entry in the G.D., PW-8 Hori Lal, Principal, Higher Secondary School, Khirdwari and PW-9 S.H.O. R.S. Toliya, Investigating Officer. 7. Learned Sessions Judge, Champawat, after considering the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement of prosecution witnesses, the statements of the accused/ appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the medical report of the victim as well as the statement of the doctor, convicted the accused/appellant and awarded punishment as mentioned above. 8. PW-1 Km. Kamla-the victim, in her statement has stated that she is the student of Class-VII in Higher Secondary, Khirdwari. She is having ten siblings. Her mother resides in the village. She has four elder siblings. All brothers and sisters live together. Two elder sisters are married. Her two brothers are employed. After school is over, she had to go to jungle, nearby to her house for fetching firewood. Her father had prevented her to go to jungle with other females and directed to go jungle alone. Shiv Ram also accompanied her. In the month of April, 2006, when she was cutting grass at the jungle, her father came at the spot, used force and after removing her clothes, raped her. When she reached her home, she narrated whole incident to her mother. Five times, her father committed rape upon her. She stated that she lodged report on 18.08.2006 at Kotwali, Champawat. At that time, Keshav Ram (PW-2) her cousin was present with her. When she reached her home, she narrated whole incident to her mother. Five times, her father committed rape upon her. She stated that she lodged report on 18.08.2006 at Kotwali, Champawat. At that time, Keshav Ram (PW-2) her cousin was present with her. She proved the written report (Ext. A-1). Her statement was recorded by the S.D.M., Pati. This witness has further stated that due to fear of her father, she was residing in the house of her cousin Keshav Ram. She had disclosed the incident to the wife of Keshav Ram. She stated that after some days, her mother came to bring her and then she went her home. When her father again forced her, she fled away. Her father threatened to kill her mother as well as herself. 9. PW-3 is Smt. Sona Devi- mother of the victim who has stated that Kamla is 14 years of age, she is studying in the School. She stated that after school period, the victim used to go to jungle for fetching firewood and grass. Sometimes, her husband-accused also accompanied the victim while going to jungle. She stated that due to fear, Km. Kamla was leaving with Keshav Ram. She stated that after returning home, the victim disclosed that she was beaten in the jungle by her father, but she did not state anything about rape. This witness was declared hostile. In her cross-examination, at one place, this witness stated that though she asked her daughter, but her daughter has not given statement in favour of her father. PW-2 is Keshav Ram, cousin of the victim, who has stated that he knows the accused Shiv Ram. He stated that before the incident, the victim lived in his house for one and half months. The prosecutrix told his wife that she was being molested by her father. On being inquired by him, the victim repeated the said incident. He stated that the victim told that when she had gone jungle to fetch wood, then such incident happened. This witness has stated that father of the victim forcefully committed rape upon her own daughter. The victim informed this witness that rape was being committed for 4 to 5 months. He stated that sometime the victim became unconscious. He stated that the victim told that when she had gone jungle to fetch wood, then such incident happened. This witness has stated that father of the victim forcefully committed rape upon her own daughter. The victim informed this witness that rape was being committed for 4 to 5 months. He stated that sometime the victim became unconscious. He stated that the victim was in acute fear of her father, therefore in such circumstances she was taking shelter of the jungle, sometime on trees and some time she came to his house. Still her mental and physical state is sound. This witness has further deposed that when the victim stayed in his house, three times she was sent with her mother and sometime with sister Neela. Owing to fear of her father, she did not want to go to her father’s house. He stated that at the time of incident the victim was minor. PW-5 is Smt. Kamla Devi wife of Keshav Ram, who also corroborated the testimony of Keshav Ram. She further stated that the victim was studying in junior high school, Khirdwari and she used to go to jungle, after school hours, for fetching firewood and at that moment her father also ran after her. She stated that when Km. Kamla lived in her house, she told that her father used to commit rape on Km. Kamla. She stated that, before lodging the F.I.R., Kamla lived in her house for one and half months. She stated that when Kamla gone to her own home, the accused committed rape on her forcefully. During stay at her house, on three occasions, Km. Kamla had gone to her own home, and upon returning from her home, Km. Kamla complained of the incident of rape and beating done by her father, the accused. On being asked to return home, Kamla would not return her home, with the apprehension that her father would beat and commit rape on her. 10. PW-4 is Dr. Prabha Singh, Medical Officer, who conducted medical on the person of the victim on 19.08.2006 at Public Health Centre, Champawat. She admitted the possibility of rape. PW-6 is Dr. Narendra Sharma, Pathologist, who conducted pathological test on the person of the victim and prepared report Ext.A-4. He proved his report. 10. PW-4 is Dr. Prabha Singh, Medical Officer, who conducted medical on the person of the victim on 19.08.2006 at Public Health Centre, Champawat. She admitted the possibility of rape. PW-6 is Dr. Narendra Sharma, Pathologist, who conducted pathological test on the person of the victim and prepared report Ext.A-4. He proved his report. PW-7 is Constable 90 Naresh Kumar, who on receiving first information report, prepared Chik Report Ext.-5 and made an entry in the G.D. (Ext. A-6). PW-9 is S.H.O. R.S. Toliya, Investigation Officer, who during investigation, recorded statement of witnesses, prepared cite plan, arrested accused, took the prosecutrix for medical examination and also for recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the accused, which is Ext. A-8 on record. 11. PW-8 is Hori Lal, Principal of High Secondary School, Khirdwari, District Champawat. In his testimony, this witness has stated that Km. Kamla was student of Class-VIII of his School and her date of birth, according to the school record, is 01.03.1992. This witness proved the birth date certificate of the victim-Ext. A-7. Thus, at the time of the incident, the age of the prosecutrix was 14 years and she was minor. 12. Mrs. Gaura Devi, learned Amicus-curiae for the accused/appellant argued that the main witness of the incident is Smt. Sona Devi - mother of the victim, who did not support the prosecution case and the guilt of the accused is not proved and the trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused/appellant. Submission of the learned Amicus-curiae for the appellant is that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. She submitted that there is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. It is contended that in order to prove the guilt of the accused, evidence of Medical Officer is vital. She submitted that in the medical examination, no injury was found on the private parts of the victim, inasmuch as, no sign of forceful intercourse was found, therefore, commission of crime of rape is not at all proved. 13. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State refuted the submission advanced by learned counsel for the accused and submitted that testimony of the victim and her aunty as well other witnesses is sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. 13. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State refuted the submission advanced by learned counsel for the accused and submitted that testimony of the victim and her aunty as well other witnesses is sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. She contended that even in the medical report, the possibility of rape is not ruled out, rather same is admitted. She submitted that in the case of rape, the solitary and unshaken evidence of victim is sufficient to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. reported in (2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 583, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State submitted that it is now a well-settled principle of law that in the case of rape, conviction can be based on solitary evidence of the victim. She contended that in absence of definite opinion about the rape, the oral testimony of the victim couldn’t be disbelieved. According to learned A.G.A., the statement of the victim is sufficient for conviction. She contended that at the time of said incident, the victim was merely 14 years of age, which is proved by record. She submitted that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been explained, because the victim is daughter of the accused, she was in acute fear of her father, as she was being mentally and physically molesterd and sexually assaulted by the accused. First of all, she was in hesitation to disclose the incident of rape, that too by her own father, to any one, therefore instead of disclosing the evil act done by her father, she chose isolation and in this process she hide herself in jungle, took shelter in trees and started living with his cousin brother and sister-in-law and remained there for about one and half months. 14. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the Lower Court’s Record. 15. Lodging of F.I.R. has been explained, because the victim is daughter of the accused, she was in acute fear of her father, as she was being mentally and physically molested and sexually assaulted by the accused. 14. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the Lower Court’s Record. 15. Lodging of F.I.R. has been explained, because the victim is daughter of the accused, she was in acute fear of her father, as she was being mentally and physically molested and sexually assaulted by the accused. First of all, she was in hesitation to disclose the incident of rape, that too by her own father, to any one, therefore rather disclosing the offence committed by her father to any one else, she disclosed this fact to her mother. This is a settled principle of law that the conviction can be made on the basis of solitary evidence if the evidence tendered by such witness is cogent, reliable and in tune with probabilities and inspires implicit confidence. In the present case in hand, the evidence of prosecutrix PW-1 Km. Kamla, as discussed above is fully reliable, trustworthy and inspires confidence. Nothing has come out in her cross examination also which may create any doubt in the prosecution case. As far as statement of victim’s mother is concerned, who was declared hostile, if entire evidence is read, the same does not support the accused, as at one place she has stated that though she asked her daughter (the victim), but her daughter did not give statement in favour of her father. 16. From the above discussions, it is proved that the evidence of PW-1 Km. Kamla- victim, is quite convincing, natural and inspires confidence and there is no reason to disbelieve her testimony. The testimony of PW-1 is fully corroborated with the other evidence adduced by the prosecution. The accused could not show as to what was to reason to implicate him falsely. 17. The victim, Km. Kamla, on committing rape by her father, due to acute jittery, first of all, did not disclose the inhumanity to anyone and hesitantly, disclosed the same to her mother and then went to live in the house of his cousin namely, PW-2 Keshav Ram and when her tolerance fill to the brim, she also disclosed the incident to her sister-in-law PW-5 Smt. Kamla Devi and her cousin-PW-2 Keshav Ram. She was reluctant to return her home because she was in apprehension that she will again face the same result i.e. beating and sexual assault by her father, hence leaving all hesitations, she dared to lodge an F.I.R., though with some delay, which in the circumstances cannot said to be a delayed one. 18. In this case, decency of human nature has been vanished. It is painful to express that accused/appellant is a vile, wicked and shameful person. What a shameful incident of rape is this, which has been committed by the father on his own daughter. Such person deserves maximum punishment. Though, the accused deserves punishment for life, but the Court below has convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 376 I.P.C., and in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment for two years and no appeal is filed for enhancement of sentence, the sentence awarded under Section 376 I.P.C. is affirmed. Similarly, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 506 (second part) I.P.C. is also affirmed. The judgment and order dated 22.02.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Champawat in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2006 ‘State vs. Shiv Ram’, does not warrant interference. The appeal preferred by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the accused/appellant Shiv Ram is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Champawat to the accused/ appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 and 506(2) I.P.C. is affirmed. The period already spent by the appellant in jail shall be adjusted in the sentence awarded by the Court below after making verification from the record. 19. The accused/appellant is in jail. Let a copy of this judgment, alongwith the record of the Court below be sent to the Trial Court.