JUDGMENT:- Appellant questions conviction in Sessions case No.95/2008, dated 19.8.2012, by learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Aurangabad, for offense under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC, directing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months, for Section 506 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1 ,000/-; in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month, for Section 201 of IPC rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecutrix, aged 10 years, was studying in Vth Standard at village Shivrai. The appellant has a tailoring shop near her house. On 11.12.2007, parents of the prosecutrix had been to the field for agricultural work. While they were in field, Bhausaheb Gaikwad informed parents of prosecutrix sustaining bleeding injury to her private part. It was also informed that the accused/appellant had taken prosecutrix to the hospital of Dr. Challani at Kannad, however, on his advice, she was taken to Aurangabad. She was taken to the hospital of Dr. Chobe, PW No.5, at Aurangabad, where she was admitted, operated to stop bleeding at her vagina. She was discharged on 13.12.2007. There was suspicion of the prosecutrix suffering sexual abuse. Prosecutrix was under trauma and in a disquiet state of affairs. All throughout, the accused appellant was activating, accosting, escorting, as a shadow with the prosecutrix. 3. The mother of the prosecutrix, in confidence, learnt of the cause for injury to her daughter which was shocking. It disclosed, the event on Tuesday of the appellant taking her behind backside of his shop under the guise of showing guava fruits, took her in lonely room and inserted penis to her vagina. The mother conveyed these facts to the father of the prosecutrix. Resultantly, FIR was lodged on 16.12.2007 vide Crime No.I.2003/2007. Spot panchnama was drawn on 16.12.2007. Accused was searched. Frock of prosecutrix was taken charge under panchnama. Prosecutrix and accused were medically examined. Seized apparels were sent to the Regional Forensic Laboratory, Aurangabad, for analysis. Charge-sheet was filed with learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kannad, and it was committed to the Court of Sessions at Aurangabad for trial. 4. Spot panchnama was drawn on 16.12.2007. Accused was searched. Frock of prosecutrix was taken charge under panchnama. Prosecutrix and accused were medically examined. Seized apparels were sent to the Regional Forensic Laboratory, Aurangabad, for analysis. Charge-sheet was filed with learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kannad, and it was committed to the Court of Sessions at Aurangabad for trial. 4. On 7th April, 2010, charge was explained to the appellant below Exh.13, for offense under Section 376(2)(f), 506 and 201 of IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty, claimed to be tried. His defence was false involvement owing to animosity. His statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded after examination of eleven witnesses. 5. Mr. Ghanekar, learned Counsel, submits, that for no reason, prosecution case is weaved against the appellant on village rivalry. The incident has taken place on 11.10.2007, while the report is belatedly filed on 16.12.2007. The victim, apparently, did not disclose it to any other person. The theory of appellant accompanying the prosecutrix and that she was under fear is unbelievable. Supriya, a star• witness, has not been examined. The bleeding suffered by the prosecutrix could be due to fall from a tree and would not invite a sexual abuse. PW No.5 Dr. Chobe did not confirm to parents initially that the injury is result of forcible intercourse and not by a fall. Even Dr. Challani did not suspect it to be a case of rape. If first disclosure was dated 13.12.2007, there was no reason to get it confirmed from PW No.5 Dr. Chobe and then to lodge report on 16.12.2007 (Exh.18 FIR). Learned A.P.P. submits, tender age of prosecutrix should be noted. Heinous crime is committed by appellant against humanity. 6. DETAILS OF EVIDENCE: (a) PW No.1 is Balasaheb N. Nagade, father of the prosecutrix, has stated events dated 11 th Dec., 2007. (b) PW No.2 is the prosecutrix, on date of incident, in recess, she had returned home with her friend Supriya. While she was proceeding with Supriya, accused/appellant had called them and sent Supriya to bring Pedha/sweet and, in the meantime, took the victim for showing way to guava fruit and carried her backside near water tank. She has narrated plight faced by her in the room. (c) PW No.3 Hirabai is the mother of the prosecutrix, wife of PW No.1. She narrates how PW No.4 Bhausaheb approached them to convey turmoil of prosecutrix. She has narrated plight faced by her in the room. (c) PW No.3 Hirabai is the mother of the prosecutrix, wife of PW No.1. She narrates how PW No.4 Bhausaheb approached them to convey turmoil of prosecutrix. (d) PW No.4 is Bhausaheb Khandu Gaikwad below Exh.22, a neighbour. On the date of the incident, when he was watering chattels, appellant came to him on his motor cycle, conveyed that prosecutrix fell from guava tree and sustained injury to her private part. Appellant requested to accompany to take her to a hospital at Kannad. PW No.4 noticed blood stains were at the ground where prosecutrix was sitting. He accompanied Appellant and prosecutrix to the clinic of Dr. Challani at Kannad. Appellant told her father also of prosecutrix sustaining injury due to fall from guava tree. (e) PW No.5 Dr. Alka w/o Sham Chobe is a Gynaecologist at Aurangabad. She had examined prosecutrix. The history narrated was falling from tree at sharp object at 1 p.m. The girl was resisting for her examination. Consequently, PW No.5 asked her father for anesthesia and on getting consent, she was taken in for examination at 10.20 p.m. On examination, PW No.5 noticed that there was profuse bleeding from her private part. On exploration of the private part of the patient under anaesthesia, PW No.5 found that her hymen was torn and there was tear in posterior vaginal wall about 1.5 cm to 2.00 cm at 5 O'clock position. As the patient required surgery for stopping bleeding and for healing injury, PW No.5 conducted surgery with consent of her father. The patient was discharged on 13th December, 2007. The said injury was a cut injury, it was possible due to cause given by the parents. Said injury on the private part was possible due to forcible intercourse. To the Court question, PW No.5 has replied, said injury was inside the vagina of the girl. Medical papers are placed at Exhs. 26 and 27. (f) PW No.6 Dr. Sandip Bandulal Challani, medical practitioner, at Kannad, had examined the prosecutrix at 2.30 p.m. on 11.12.2007 brought by appellant, claiming to be her maternal uncle. On examination, he noticed that there was blood oozing from her vagina. After first aid, he advised appellant to take prosecutrix to a Gynaecologist. 26 and 27. (f) PW No.6 Dr. Sandip Bandulal Challani, medical practitioner, at Kannad, had examined the prosecutrix at 2.30 p.m. on 11.12.2007 brought by appellant, claiming to be her maternal uncle. On examination, he noticed that there was blood oozing from her vagina. After first aid, he advised appellant to take prosecutrix to a Gynaecologist. (g) PW No.7 Madhavrao Raosaheb Garud was PSI attached to Kannad Police Station, recorded FIR of PW No.1 vide Crime No.1.207/2007. (h) PW No.8 is Dr. Suresh Ravte, attached to Government Medical College Hospital at Aurangabad. He had examined the prosecutrix on 16.12.2007, he found hymen was ruptured. He was unable to examine her internal genital parts due to pain and tenderness. He had noticed stitches in the vagina of the prosecutrix. PW No.8 collected the samples of vaginal swab, vines blood and nails. (i) PW No.9 Dr. Manohar A. Vakade had examined the appellant on 28.12.2007 and certified that appellant was able to do sexual intercourse (Exh.53). (j) PW No.10 Nivrutti Ramnath Mutthe had accompanied complainant to Dr. Chobe, and she told it was a rape case, hence FIR was lodged. (k) PW No.11 Balu Wamanrao Gavande was a primary school teacher at Shivrai in the year 2007. On 11.12.2007, in the classroom he noticed proxecutrix weeping. She conveyed, suffering from headache, he had noticed blood stains on her legs. 7. The account of ravish-ness furnished by PW No.2, the prosecutrix illustrate that her school time was 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. At around 11.30 when she was proceeding back to her school, appellant called her by name. Hence, she and Supriya went to the shop, under the pretext of counting buttons in the shop, Appellant then kept Supriya engaged in counting buttons asked her to procure sweets and took prosecutrix to the backside of the house, under the pretext of showing guava tree near the tank and asked her to take a rubber tube from water tank. At such time, he came from backside, pulled the prosecutrix towards small hut/Chappar, forced her to lie down, removed her underwear, removed his pant, underwear. He forcibly penetrated his penis in her vagina, when she was groaning, he commanded her to keep quiet; else, to kill her. He wore underwear to her. Prosecutrix in panic went to attend her school, but carried a threat not to disclose the events. He forcibly penetrated his penis in her vagina, when she was groaning, he commanded her to keep quiet; else, to kill her. He wore underwear to her. Prosecutrix in panic went to attend her school, but carried a threat not to disclose the events. Her Teacher (PW No.11) realized her pains. She was relieved from class. When prosecutrix was waiting near her house, appellant came and asked her not to disclose what he has done and insisted that she should tell of falling from tree of guava. There was oozing which appellant washed. At hospital of PW 6, accused removed her underwear, threw it away and covered her private part by his UPARNA (cloth used by villagers, around half a meter in length). Thereafter, since there was profuse bleeding and prosecutrix was frightened, she was taken to Aurangabad with her parents. She was referred for examination by PW No.5 Dr. Chobe and appellant remained with her all throughout. Even she was taken to the house of daughter of the appellant. 8. Mr. Ghanekar's attack on Dr. Chobe not disclosing of sexual abuse to the prosecutrix is difficult to accede as there was no injury suffered by prosecutrix on any other body part which was possible had there been indeed a fall from guava tree. This has been confirmed by PW No.5 and even by the Doctors examining her at the Government Hospital. The injury at inner part of her vagina, rupture of hymen was suggestive of intrusion which was the act of forcible sex by the appellant. The tenderness of her private part, undeveloped, was obvious due to her age, to be barely of 10 years, and no development of secondary sex characteristics. PW 10 corroborates that PW 5 Dr. Chobe told of sexual abuse. 9. There cannot be generalization of a fact that the delay in the FIR to be treated as fetter. The delay should be such as to throw a situation of suspicion against the prosecution. In this case, the hapless parents were estranged due to profuse bleeding suffered by ten year old daughter. Human psychology and behavioural probabilities should not be skipped. The appellant was all throughout remained like a shadow. He even carried the prosecutrix to his daughter's house at Aurangabad. There should not be intrinsically wrong approach while appreciating potency of evidence of PW No.3 (mother) and of PW No.1 (father), PW 2 (prosecutrix). Human psychology and behavioural probabilities should not be skipped. The appellant was all throughout remained like a shadow. He even carried the prosecutrix to his daughter's house at Aurangabad. There should not be intrinsically wrong approach while appreciating potency of evidence of PW No.3 (mother) and of PW No.1 (father), PW 2 (prosecutrix). The delay in the FIR is reasonable, explained by the parents, including the prosecutrix. It cannot be believed a case was weaved against the appellant It is difficult to digest that prestige of the girl will be exposed by the parents of the prosecutrix. Initially, there was no ring of suspicion against the appellant as he was accosting the prosecutrix to the clinic of Dr. Challani or Dr. Chobe. The theory of roping him in due to animosity is also thereby defused. This is more so as, a person on inimical terms, will not make smooth passage to take the prosecutrix to his daughter's house or to the two Doctors referred above. 10. The confidence expressed by mother of the prosecutrix wield results to unfold the events and it shockingly revealed, prosecutrix's sexual abuse. The psychological phenomenon of the prosecutrix at the age of ten years also should be taken note of. She was unaware of such exposition and the repercussions. She was under threat by the appellant. Consequently, she could not throw immediate light on his diabolic act. The animosity, propagated by the appellant rebel against realism to act upon. One cannot overlook a situation in which the minor girl had found herself. The defence of accidental injuries, also has no significance as there were no bruises or external abrasions or tearing of frock or apparels of the prosecutrix had it been a fall from guava tree. The normal height of top of the tree is 25 ft. No reason for prosecutrix to climb till end; still, by calculation, fall from 1015 ft. at a rough surface would not involve such grave internal injury, particularly when prosecutrix had undergarments. The appellant deliberately destructed undergarments with blood stains. He knew gravity of his act. 11. The evidence of PW No. 5 and her case papers at Exhs. 26, 27 shows of giving treatment to the internal part of vagina to stop profuse bleeding. The prosecutrix was operated. The appellant deliberately destructed undergarments with blood stains. He knew gravity of his act. 11. The evidence of PW No. 5 and her case papers at Exhs. 26, 27 shows of giving treatment to the internal part of vagina to stop profuse bleeding. The prosecutrix was operated. The tearing of internal body parts could not be result of any iron bar, as, at one stage, the appellant has suggested. Branch of tree will not leave such impact of brutal injury upon private part of the prosecutrix without any corresponding surface injury. The sexual abuse is even indicated by medical evidence. The appellant has libidinously ravaged a tiny female tot like a wild beast, exposed her image in society. Analysis of entire evidence does not leave any room for doubt against the appellant. The appreciation of evidence carried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is on factual matrix and, hence, no interference is called for. Criminal Appeal (No.556/2012) is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.