JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, J. Present appeal filed against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge Solan in Sessions Trial No. 12-S/7 of 2006 titled State of H.P. Vs. Dev Rattan decided on 4.9.2007. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE : 2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are that on dated 15.10.2005 at 11.45 PM at place Darot accused attempted to commit rape upon minor prosecutrix against her will. It is alleged by prosecution that on dated 15.10.2005 village fair in the ground of Government Middle School Darot was held and cultural programme was also held during night time. It is further alleged by prosecution that minor prosecutrix also came to see cultural programme on night of dated 15.10.2005. It is further alleged by prosecution that at about 11.45 PM minor prosecutrix along with her friends PW2 Puja and one Charu went to answer the call of nature in the nearby bushes and while returning after meeting call of nature PW2 Puja and Charu were few steps ahead from minor prosecutrix. It is also alleged by prosecution that in the meantime accused caught hold the arm of minor prosecution suddenly and gagged her mouth and took her forcibly in nearby bushes and attempted to commit rape upon her by opening her salwar who out of fear became unconscious. It is further alleged by prosecution that PW4 Hamender and father of minor prosecutrix PW5 Jai Kishan went in search of minor prosecutrix when they came to know about her missing. It is also alleged by prosecution that when accused noticed aforesaid witnesses coming in search of prosecutrix then he tried to flee away from the spot but PW4 Hamender over powered the accused. It is further alleged by prosecution that accused had also consumed alcohol. It is further alleged by prosecution that PW4 Hamender searched the prosecutrix and found her lying nearby the bushes. It is also alleged by prosecution that thereafter Hamender brought the prosecutrix from the bushes to nearby path. It is further alleged by prosecution that PW6 Sandhya who was on way to her house from fair at the request of PW4 Hamender tied the salwar of prosecutrix. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter severe beatings were given to accused by public present in the fair. It is further alleged by prosecution that PW6 Sandhya who was on way to her house from fair at the request of PW4 Hamender tied the salwar of prosecutrix. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter severe beatings were given to accused by public present in the fair. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter minor prosecutrix and accused were brought by PW4 Hamender and PW5 Jai Kishan to the house of PW4 Hamender in his jeep. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter PW3 Shiv Singh informed the police telephonically at P.S. Solan and thereupon rapat Ext.PW13/B was lodged. It is alleged that after recording rapat Ext.PW13/B PW14 Anil Dhaulta along with other police officials rushed to the place of incident. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter minor prosecutrix was brought to hospital and PW14 SI Anil Dhaulta recorded statement of minor prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and sent the same along with Ruka Ext.PW1/A for registration of case. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter FIR Ext.PW14/B was lodged against the accused at police station. It is further alleged by prosecution that I.O. Mr. Anil Dhaulta during investigation took photographs at the spot which are Ext.PW14/1 to Ext.PW14/3. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter PW8 Dr. Mukta on application of Investigating Officer medically examined the minor prosecutrix and issued MLC Ext.PW8/B and also sealed the clothes of prosecutrix i.e. sweater, shirt and salwar along with pubic hair. It is further alleged by prosecution that accused was also medically examined and MLC Ext.PW9/B was obtained. It was found that accused was capable of performing sexual intercourse. It is further alleged by prosecution that injuries sustained by accused were simple in nature. It is further alleged by prosecution that I.O. PW7 Anil Dhaulta during investigating recovered scarf Ext.P2 and 100 rupee note Ext.P4 from the spot. It is further alleged by prosecution that I.O. prepared spot map Ext.PW14/C. It is further alleged by prosecution that pubic hair, salwar, shirt, sweater and underwear of accused Ext.P8 were sent to FSL Junga which were examined by PW11 Dr. Gian Thakur who issued his report Ext.PW11/A and opined that salwar of minor prosecutrix contained blood. 2A. Learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC on 30.6.2006. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Gian Thakur who issued his report Ext.PW11/A and opined that salwar of minor prosecutrix contained blood. 2A. Learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC on 30.6.2006. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. The prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses in support of its case :- Sr.No. Name of Witness PW1 Kumari Kiran Thakur PW2 Kumari Puja PW3 Shiv Singh PW4 Hamender PW5 Jai Singh PW6 Sandhya PW7 Hemant Kumar PW8 Dr. Mukta PW9 Dr. Surinder Singh PW10 Dr. J.P. Kaushik PW11 Dr. Gian Thakur PW12 Bhupinder Singh PW13 Dinesh Kumar PW14 SI Anil Dhaulta DW1 Jai Kishan 4 Prosecution also produced following piece of documentary evidence in support of its case :- Sr.No. Description: Ex.PA Statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ex.PB Recovery memo of Dupatta Ext.P2 and currency note of Rs.100. Ex.PC. Supurdari memo Ex.PD. Recovery memo of birth certificate Ex.PE. Birth Certificate Ex.P1 to Ext.P7 Sealed parcel, chuni, envelope, currency notice of Rs.100/-, salwar and sweater Ex.PW.8/A. Application for medical examination Ex.PW8/B. MLC Ex.PW.9/A Application for medical examination Ex.PW9/B. MLC of accused Dev Rattan Ex.PW.10/A to Ext.PW10/C. X-ray films Ex.PW10/D Report. Ex.PW11/A FSL report Ext.PW13/A and Ext.PW13/B Report Nos. 13 and 32 Ext.PW14/1 to Ext.PW14/3 Photographs Ext.PW14/4 Negatives Ext.PW14/A Endorsement on Rukka Ext.PW14/B Copy of FIR Ext.PW14/C Spot map 5. Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused has stated that prosecution witnesses namely PW4 Hamender has enmity with him because he did not hand over cash crops i.e. tomatoes. He has stated that on dated 15.10.2005 at about 10.30/11 PM witnesses namely Hamender, Jai Singh, Ishwar Singh and Devinder Singh caught him near by his house when he came out from his ho use and when he was watching fair from place nearby his house and gave him severe beatings by fist blows. He has further stated that thereafter he was taken to the house of witness Shiv Singh in injured condition and after due deliberation they projected minor prosecutrix against him and he was handed over to police by fabricating false case against him. Accused examined one witness in defence. Learned Sessions Judge Solan acquitted the respondent-accused by giving him the benefit of doubt. 6. Accused examined one witness in defence. Learned Sessions Judge Solan acquitted the respondent-accused by giving him the benefit of doubt. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Trial Court the State filed present appeal under 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and prayer for acceptance of appeal sought. 7. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State-appellant and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent and also perused the entire record carefully. 8. Question that arises for determination before us in this appeal is whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and whether learned trial Court had committed miscarriage of justice by acquitting the accused. ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION : 9.1. Learned trial Court has given the certificate that minor prosecutrix aged 13 years understood the sanctity of oath and her testimony was recorded on oath by learned trial Court. Minor prosecutrix has stated that on dated 15.10.2005 at 11.45 PM there was fair in Middle School Darot and minor prosecutrix was watching the cultural programme during night time along with her friends namely Puja and Charu. She has stated that at about 11.45 PM night she along with aforesaid classmates went to answer the call of nature in the nearby place in bushes. She has further stated that after meeting the call of nature when she was returning back along with her classmates and when her classmates were walking ahead she was caught by accused person from her arm. She has stated that when she turned herself back she saw that person who had caught her from arm was Dev Rattan accused present in Court. She has stated that thereafter accused took her forcibly nearby bushes and attempted to commit rape upon her. She has stated that accused untied the string of her salwar and opened her salwar and thereafter she became unconscious. She has stated that she tried to raise alarm but her mouth was gagged by accused. She has stated that thereafter she gained consciousness in hospital Solan. She has stated that she was medically examined and thereafter police officials came in hospital and her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext.PA was recorded which bears her signatures. She has stated that she also visited police station and her statement was recorded in police station. She has stated that thereafter she gained consciousness in hospital Solan. She has stated that she was medically examined and thereafter police officials came in hospital and her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext.PA was recorded which bears her signatures. She has stated that she also visited police station and her statement was recorded in police station. She has further stated that she also demarcated the place of incident to police during investigation and police also recovered her scarf along with currency note of Rs. 100/- from the spot and further stated that scarft was sealed in sealed parcel. She has stated that her shirt Ext.P4, salwar Ext.P5, sweater Ext.P7 were took into possession. She has denied suggestion that relations of her family with accused and his family members are strained and are inimical. She has denied suggestion that false case has been filed against the accused. 9.2 PW2 Puja has stated that on dated 15.10.2005 she along with prosecutrix and Charu were watching the cultural programme in middle school Darot. She has stated that at about 11.45 PM she along with Charu and minor prosecutrix went to meet the call of nature in nearby bushes and after meeting the call of nature she and Charu were walking ahead to minor prosecutrix. She has stated that accused Dev Rattan in their presence went towards down side. She has stated that thereafter she and Charu returned to school ground and started watching cultural programme. She has stated that thereafter mother of minor prosecutrix inquired from them about minor prosecutrix and they expressed their ignorance. 9.3 PW3 Shiv Singh has stated that on dated 15.10.2005 he came to know about incident at about 12.30 at night from Hamender, Jai Singh and Devinder. He has stated that spot was located by minor prosecutrix in his presence and one scarf and Rs.100/- note were recovered which were took into possession vide seizure memo. He has stated that scarf Ext.P2 and currency note of Rs.100/- is Ext.P4. He has denied suggestion that accused and his father were not supplying agriculture product to his son and due to this reason he has given false version in Court. He has denied suggestion that false case has been filed against accused. He has denied suggestion that accused was mercilessly beaten by his son and his nephew Jai Singh and Devinder. He has denied suggestion that accused and his father were not supplying agriculture product to his son and due to this reason he has given false version in Court. He has denied suggestion that false case has been filed against accused. He has denied suggestion that accused was mercilessly beaten by his son and his nephew Jai Singh and Devinder. 9.4 PW4 Hamender has stated that on dated 15.10.2005 at about 12.30 night father of minor prosecutrix told him that accused had taken his daughter forcibly. He has stated that at that time he was in fair at village Darot. He has stated that he and Jai Singh father of prosecutrix went to search the minor prosecutrix and further stated that accused met them nearby the ground. He has stated that he recognized the accused in moonlight but accused tried to run away but he was over powered by him at some distance. He has stated that accused had consumed liquor. He has stated that thereafter he traced the prosecutrix nearby the bushes and found that prosecutrix was in unconscious position and her salwar was found opened. He has stated that he lifted minor prosecutrix from the spot to nearby path and in the meanwhile ladies of village passed from the spot were asked by him to tie the string of the salwar of prosecutrix. He has further stated that one Smt. Sandhya tied the string of salwar of prosecutrix. He has also stated that thereafter he brought the minor prosecutrix to his house and accused was also brought to his house in his vehicle. He has stated that thereafter accused was given to police officials and prosecutrix was taken to hospital. He has denied suggestion that he was having enmity with accused. 9.5 PW5 Jai Singh has stated that minor prosecutrix is her daughter and further stated that minor prosecutrix is student of 8th class in Government school Darot and on dated 15.10.2005 there was fair in their village at Darot and there was cultural programme. He has stated that at about 11-12 night his brother Devinder came to him and told him that accused has taken his daughter to some unknown place and she was not traceable. He has stated that at about 11-12 night his brother Devinder came to him and told him that accused has taken his daughter to some unknown place and she was not traceable. He has stated that he told the incident to his cousin brother Hamender and from one side he went in search of minor prosecutrix and other side Hamender went to search minor prosecutrix. He has stated that Hamender was chasing the accused and he over powered the accused. He has stated that Hamender told that accused should not be allowed to run from the spot. He has stated that accused was under the influence of liquor. He has stated that in the meanwhile some persons came from the festival ground to him and inquired from him about the matter. He has stated that he told that accused took his daughter to some unknown place and she was not traceable. He has stated that thereafter accused was beaten and thereafter his cousin brother Hamender brought minor prosecutrix who was unconscious. He has stated that in the meanwhile four ladies passed from the passage and he asked them to tied string of salwar of prosecutrix and thereafter one Smt. Sandhya tied string of salwar of minor prosecutrix. He has stated that thereafter prosecutrix was medically examined. He has stated that he also obtained birth certificate from Secretary Gram Panchayat which was given by him to the police and same was took into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PD which bears his signatures. He has stated that prosecutrix did not become unconscious at any time prior to incident. He has denied suggestion that false case has been filed against the accused. 9.6 PW6 Sandhya has stated that at about 1.15 AM when she was returning to her house after watching cultural programme she noticed that quarrel took place nearby the public path. She has further stated that she asked witness Hamender as to why he was quarrelling. She has stated that thereafter Hamender asked her to tied salwar of minor prosecutrix. She has stated that she saw that girl was unconscious and her salwar was opened. She has stated that thereafter she tied the salwar of minor prosecutrix. She has denied suggestion that she deposed falsely because she is close relative to father of prosecutrix. She has stated that thereafter Hamender asked her to tied salwar of minor prosecutrix. She has stated that she saw that girl was unconscious and her salwar was opened. She has stated that thereafter she tied the salwar of minor prosecutrix. She has denied suggestion that she deposed falsely because she is close relative to father of prosecutrix. 9.7 PW7 Hemant Kumar has stated that he is posted as Panchayat Assistant in G.P. Darot and he has brought the birth certificate for the year 1992. He has stated that birth entry of minor prosecutrix was entered at Sr. No. 24 dated 25.11.1992 and he issued birth certificate Ext.PE. He has stated that entry in birth register was not made by him. 9.8 PW8 Dr. Mukta has stated that she is posted as M.O. RH Solan since September 2002 and on dated 16.10.2005 police moved an application Ext.PW8/A for medical examination of minor prosecutrix and after her physical examination, she issued MLC Ext.PW8/B which is in her hand and bears her signatures. She has further stated that she also sealed clothes of prosecutrix, sweater, shirt, salwar along with pubic hair and secretion from private part in sealed parcel and handed over to police. 9.9 PW9 Dr. Surinder Singh has stated that he is posted as M.O. in RH Solan since June 2005 and on dated 16.10.2005 at about 5.40 AM accused was brought to him by police for medical examination vide application Ext.PW9/A. He has stated that following injuries were found present at the time of examination. (1) Injury present at the left side of face, swelling present, black eye present. (2) Injury present in the nose, bleeding from left nostril present and clotted blood was also present over face. (3) Abrasion present in right side of the face in the maxillary prominence region. (4) Abrasion present on left side of forehead. He has stated that accused was well built, pubic hair well developed, penis was fully developed, scrotum was fully developed and no smegma was present after retracting the prepuce. He has further stated that there was breath smelling of alcohol and accused was well oriented to time and space and his underwear was preserved for further forensic laboratory report. He has stated that nature of injuries was simple and weapon used was blunt. He has also stated that accused was capable of performing sexual intercourse. He has further stated that there was breath smelling of alcohol and accused was well oriented to time and space and his underwear was preserved for further forensic laboratory report. He has stated that nature of injuries was simple and weapon used was blunt. He has also stated that accused was capable of performing sexual intercourse. He has stated that accused had consumed alcohol but not under the intoxication condition. He has stated that he issued MLC Ext.PW9/B which is in his hand and bears his signatures. He has stated that he did not observe any evidence of fracture upon body of accused. 9.10 PW10 Dr. J.P. Kaushik Radiologist has stated that he was posted as Radiologist in Z.H. Solan since November 2003. He has stated that on dated 18.10.2005 X-ray of accused was done under his supervision vide X-ray films Ext.PW10/A to Ext.PW10/C and he issued report Ext.PW10/D. He has stated that no fracture was detected on body of accused. He has stated that he does not know which cough syrup contained alcohol. 9.11 PW11 Dr. Gian Thakur has stated that he was posted as Scientific Officer in FSL Junga since March 1998. He has stated that case property was examined in FSL Junga and further stated that FSL report is Ext.PW11/A which is issued in his hand and bears his signatures. 9.12 PW12 SHO Bhupinder Singh has stated that he remained posted as SHO P.S. Solan till October 2005. He has stated that after completion of investigation SI Anil Dhaulta handed over the case to him for preparation of challan. He has stated that he prepared final report and presented the same in Court. 9.13 PW13 C. Dinesh Kumar has stated that in the month of June 2005 he was posted on general duty at P.S. Solan. He has brought the daily dairy register. He has stated that rapat No. 32 dated 16.10.2005 was also lodged at P.S. Solan and copies are Ext.PW13/A and Ext.PW13/B which are correct as per original record. He has stated that rapat was not written by him. 9.14 PW14 SI Anil Dhaulta has stated that since April 2004 he was posted as SI/Additional SHO at P.S. Solan. He has stated that on dated 16.10.2005 telephonic message was received at P.S. Solan from one Shiv Singh Thakur village Darot on the basis of which rapat Ext.PW13/B was lodged. He has stated that rapat was not written by him. 9.14 PW14 SI Anil Dhaulta has stated that since April 2004 he was posted as SI/Additional SHO at P.S. Solan. He has stated that on dated 16.10.2005 telephonic message was received at P.S. Solan from one Shiv Singh Thakur village Darot on the basis of which rapat Ext.PW13/B was lodged. He has stated that thereafter he along with other police officials rushed to the spot in Government vehicle and reached in house of Shiv Singh from where he brought the girl and accused to Z.H. Solan. He has further stated that girl at that time was unconscious and accused was also in injured condition. He has stated that he moved applications Ext.PW8/A and Ext.PW9/A to M.O. ZH Solan for medical examination of minor prosecutrix and accused and MLCs Ext.PW8/B and Ext.PW9/B were obtained. He has stated that when girl regained consciousness in hospital he recorded her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext.PA and accordingly prepared ruka Ext.PW14/A and sent the same to P.S. Solan thereupon FIR Ext.PW14/B was registered by SI Yashwant Singh. He has stated that on the morning of dated 16.10.2005 he visited the spot of occurrence along with girl and at her location he prepared spot map Ext.PW14/C the marginal notes are in his hands. He has also stated that at the spot nearby bushes scarf and one 100 rupees note were also found lying and prosecutrix identified her scarf. He has further stated that he also took photographs of the place of incident with the help of photographer. He has stated that scarf and Rs.100/- note took into possession vide seizure memo. He has stated that he also procured birth certificate of prosecutrix and he handed over the case file to SHO Bhupinder Singh for preparation of final report. He has denied suggestion that accused has been implicated in false case in connivance with complainant party. 10. DW1 Jai Singh has stated that on dated 15.10.2005 there was a fair at Darot and at about 10 PM there were many people attending the fair and further stated that accused was beaten by Hamender, Jai Singh, Devinder, Ishwar Singh etc. near the school in his presence. 10. DW1 Jai Singh has stated that on dated 15.10.2005 there was a fair at Darot and at about 10 PM there were many people attending the fair and further stated that accused was beaten by Hamender, Jai Singh, Devinder, Ishwar Singh etc. near the school in his presence. He has stated that thereafter accused was took in a vehicle to the house of Shiv Singh in village Barran and further stated that accused was beaten due to enmity between accused and Hamender regarding transportation of vegetable boxes of tomatoes which the accused stopped to supply to Hamender. He has stated that he tried to intervene but of no use. He has stated that he is friend of accused for the last many years. He has denied suggestion that accused has dragged minor prosecutrix in bushes. He has stated that he has no knowledge that minor prosecutrix was lying on the ground with her slawar opened. He has denied suggestion that accused was beaten when act and conduct of accused came to knowledge of villagers. He has denied suggestion that there was no enmity between accused and Hamender. He has denied suggestion that being friend of accused he was deposing falsely to save him. Oral testimony of minor prosecutrix qua attempt to rape inspires confidence of Court beyond reasonable doubt. 11. Court has carefully perused the testimony of minor prosecutrix recorded on oath by learned trial Court. Minor prosecutrix aged 13 years has specifically stated when she appeared in witness box that on dated 15.10.2005 at about 11.45 PM there was cultural programme in middle school Darot and she was watching cultural programme during the night period. Minor prosecutrix has stated in positive manner that to meet the nature of call she went to nearby bushes. Minor prosecutrix has further stated in positive manner that after meeting the nature of call when she was returning back to see the cultural programme in the night period she was caught by accused from her arm and she recognized the accused. Minor prosecutrix has stated that accused also gagged her mouth with his hand and she could not raise any hue and cry. Minor prosecutrix has further stated that thereafter accused took her to nearby bushes and attempted to commit rape upon her. Minor prosecutrix has stated that accused also gagged her mouth with his hand and she could not raise any hue and cry. Minor prosecutrix has further stated that thereafter accused took her to nearby bushes and attempted to commit rape upon her. Minor prosecutrix has stated in positive manner that accused untied string of her salwar and opened her salwar and thereafter she became unconscious. Testimony of minor prosecutrix is trustworthy reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of minor prosecutrix aged 13 years. There is no evidence in order to prove that minor prosecutrix has hostile animus against the accused. Testimony of minor prosecutrix is proved by corroborative oral evidence beyond reasonable doubt 12. PW2 Puja aged 14 years has stated that during the night period on dated 15.10.2005 at about 11.45 PM she along with Charu and minor prosecutrix went to meet the call of nature. PW2 Puja has stated in positive manner that after meeting the call of nature she and Charu were walking ahead of minor prosecutrix during the night period at 11.45 PM and accused in her presence went towards the down side. PW2 has stated in positive manner that during the night period at 11.45 PM accused in her presence went towards down side from where minor prosecutrix was coming after meeting call of nature. Testimony of PW2 Puja is also trustworthy reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW2 Puja. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that PW2 Puja has hostile animus against the accused prior to the incident or after the incident. 13. Testimony of minor prosecutrix is further corroborated by PW4 Hamender who has stated in positive cogent and reliable manner that prosecutrix was unconscious near the bushes and her salwar was found opened. He has stated that he requested Sandhya to tie the string of salwar of minor prosecutrix aged 13 years. Testimony of PW4 Hamender is also trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW4 Hamender. 14. Testimony of minor prosecutrix is further corroborated by PW5 Jai Singh who has stated that minor prosecutrix was found unconscious near the bushes at 11.45 PM in night. Testimony of PW4 Hamender is also trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW4 Hamender. 14. Testimony of minor prosecutrix is further corroborated by PW5 Jai Singh who has stated that minor prosecutrix was found unconscious near the bushes at 11.45 PM in night. Testimony of minor prosecutrix is further corroborated by PW6 Sandhya who has stated that prosecutrix was found unconscious and her salwar was opened. Testimony of minor prosecutrix is also corroborated by PW9 Dr. Surender Singh who has stated that accused was capable of performing sexual intercourse. Even as per chemical examiner report Ext.PW11/A placed on record the blood was found upon the salwar of minor prosecutrix. Testimony of minor prosecutrix is also proved beyond reasonable doubt by way of link evidence 15. PW3 Sher Singh has stated that scarf and Rs.100/- note were recovered as per location shown by prosecutrix. Even PW7 Hemant Kumar has proved the birth certificate of minor prosecutrix Ext.PE and as per birth certificate Ext.PE placed on record minor prosecutrix was born on dated 25.11.1992. Birth certificate Ext.PE has been prepared by public official in discharge of his official duty and is relevant fact under Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act and PW13 C. Dinesh Kumar has proved the entry of daily dairy beyond reasonable doubt. Testimony of minor prosecutrix is proved by way of documentary evidence 16. Seizure memo of scarf and note of Rs. 100/- bearing No.ZLE 353095 recovered from the spot as per location shown by minor prosecutrix is proved on record. Even as per documentary evidence Ext.PW9/B placed on record age of accused was 27 years at the time of incident and as per MLC Ext.PW9/B accused was capable of performing sexual intercourse. The place of incident where incident took place during the night period upon minor prosecutrix is proved as per documentary evidence i.e. site plan Ext.PW14/A placed on record. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused that as per MLC Ext.PW8/B hymen of prosecutrix was intact and on this ground appeal filed by State be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In present case it is not case of prosecution that accused had committed rape upon minor prosecutrix by way of penetration of his penis into vagina of minor prosecutrix. In present case it is not case of prosecution that accused had committed rape upon minor prosecutrix by way of penetration of his penis into vagina of minor prosecutrix. On contrary case of prosecution is that accused had attempted to commit rape upon minor prosecutrix. It is held that injury upon hymen is not essential in order to prove the offence of attempt to commit rape. In present case it is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that accused caught hold the prosecutrix from her arms and closed the mouth of minor prosecutrix during night period at 11.45 PM on dated 15.10.2005 and thereafter accused aged 27 years took the minor prosecutrix aged 13 years to nearby bushes during the night period and thereafter accused opened the salwar of prosecutrix and prosecutrix who was minor aged 13 years became unconscious. Hence it is held that in order to prove the offence of attempt to rape rupture of hymen is not essential. 18. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused that there was enmity between accused and Hamender PW4 due to the reason that accused had refused to supply the crops of tomatoes to Hamender and on this ground appeal filed by State be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In present case Hamender PW4 is not the complainant. In present case complainant is minor prosecutrix aged 13 years and minor prosecutrix personally went to police station to lodge FIR against the accused and minor prosecutrix who was student of 8th class has specifically stated in positive manner that accused took her in nearby bushes on dated 15.10.2005 at 11.45 PM and attempted to commit rape upon her. No reason has been assigned as to why minor prosecutrix became unconscious on dated 15.10.2005 at 11.45 PM in night. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that minor prosecutrix was suffering from some ailment of mental depression or otherwise. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that minor prosecutrix was found unconscious nearby bushes on dated 15.10.2005 at 11.45 PM. It is also proved on record that salwar of prosecutrix was opened during the night period at 11.45 PM on dated 15.10.2005 and it is also proved on record that PW5 Sandhya has tied the string of salwar of minor prosecutrix during night period. 19. It is also proved on record that salwar of prosecutrix was opened during the night period at 11.45 PM on dated 15.10.2005 and it is also proved on record that PW5 Sandhya has tied the string of salwar of minor prosecutrix during night period. 19. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused that it was dark night and identification of accused was not possible by minor prosecutrix during night period and on this ground appeal filed by State be dismissed is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that accused is resident of village of minor prosecutrix and it is also proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that accused was known to minor prosecutrix earlier. It is not case of prosecution that accused was stranger to minor prosecutrix. Minor prosecutrix has specifically stated in positive manner that she identified the accused by way of voice. It is well settled law that accused can be identified by way of voice also. Accused did not cross examine the minor prosecutrix that she was not familiar with voice of accused. Accused also did not adduce any evidence on record in order to prove that minor prosecutrix was not familiar with voice of accused. It is well settled law that individual voice cannot match with individual voice of another person. It is proved on record by way of testimonies of other independent witnesses that they saw the accused nearby the place of incident on dated 15.10.2005 at 11.45 PM night. No explanation has been given by accused as to how he reached at the place of incident on dated 15.10.2005 at 11.45 PM. Even plea of alibi is not taken by accused in cross examination. No reason has been assigned by accused as to why he did not take the plea of alibi when opportunity of cross examination was given to him upon testimonies of prosecution witnesses examined by prosecution. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of minor prosecutrix that she has identified the accused. Even minor prosecutrix had identified accused in Court when testimony of minor prosecutrix was recorded by learned trial Court. Hence it is held that identification of accused is proved on record as per testimony of minor prosecutrix and as per testimonies of other independent witnesses examined by prosecution. 20. Even minor prosecutrix had identified accused in Court when testimony of minor prosecutrix was recorded by learned trial Court. Hence it is held that identification of accused is proved on record as per testimony of minor prosecutrix and as per testimonies of other independent witnesses examined by prosecution. 20. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused that accused had sustained simple injuries and simple injuries have not been explained by prosecution and on this ground appeal filed by State be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that when villagers came to know that accused aged 27 years had attempted to commit rape upon the minor prosecutrix aged thirteen years during midnight at 11.45 PM they could not control their sentiments and they inflicted simple injuries upon the accused. Infliction of simple injuries upon the accused is duly explained by prosecution in present case and it is held that villagers have inflicted injuries upon accused when they came to know that accused had attempted to commit rape upon minor prosecutrix aged 13 years during midnight at 11.45 PM on account of non-control of their sentiments qua the protection of minor prosecutrix. Hence it is held that simple injuries sustained by accused is not fatal to prosecution in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that accused had attempted to commit rape upon the minor prosecutrix during the night period at 11.45 PM. It was held in case reported in (1996)2 SCC 384 , titled State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and others that testimony of prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of entire case and trial Court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations. (Also see (2000)5 SCC 30 , titled State of Rajasthan vs. N.K. the accused. Also see (2000)1 SCC 247 , titled State vs. Lekh Raj and another, (1992)3 SCC 204 , titled Madan Gopal Kakkad versus Naval Dubey and another. 21. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused that no spermatozoa was found upon any part of prosecutrix and on this ground appeal filed by State be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. 21. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused that no spermatozoa was found upon any part of prosecutrix and on this ground appeal filed by State be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It was held in case reported in (1994) SCC 728 titled Narayanamma vs. State of Karnataka discovery of spermatozoa in private parts of prosecutrix is not must for offence under Section 376 IPC. It is well settled law that conviction can be based in a criminal case upon the sole testimony of a single witness if testimony of witness is trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of Court. (See AIR 1973 SC 944 titled Jose vs. State of Kerala; See: AIR 1965 SC 202 titled Masalti and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, See: AIR 1957 SC 614 titled Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras). In present case testimony of minor prosecutrix inspires confidence of Court and it is held that minor prosecutrix has identified the accused during the midnight at 11.45 PM on dated 15.10.2005 because accused is resident of village of minor prosecutrix and minor prosecutrix was familiar with accused due to resident of village of accused. It is well settled law that Courts are under legal obligation to protect the interest of minor. It is well settled law that murder destroys the body of victim but offence of commission of rape degrades the soul of minor prosecutrix. It is well settled law that criminals should not be allowed to go scot free when offence is proved against criminals beyond reasonable doubt. 22. It was held in case reported in 2007 AIR SCW 2198 titled Ramkripal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh that attempt to commit an offence can be said to begin when the preparations are complete and culprit commences to do something with intention to commit the offence and which is a step towards the commission of offence. The moment he commences to do an act with the necessary intention, he commences his attempt to commit the offence. It was held in case reported in AIR2004SC 1874 titled Koppula Venkat Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh that attempt to commit an offence is an act or a series of acts, which leads inevitably to the commission of the offence. It was held in case reported in AIR2004SC 1874 titled Koppula Venkat Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh that attempt to commit an offence is an act or a series of acts, which leads inevitably to the commission of the offence. An attempt may be described to be an act done in part execution of a criminal design amounting to more than mere preparation but falling short of actual commission. In present case it is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that accused took minor prosecutrix in bushes during night period at 11.45 PM and thereafter removed salwar of prosecutrix and when minor prosecutrix became unconscious accused left the minor prosecutrix. 23. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused that there are material contradictions in present case and on this ground appeal filed by State be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused did not point out any material contradiction which goes to the root of the case. It is proved on record that incident of attempt to commit rape took place on dated 15.10.2005 and statements prosecution witnesses were recorded from dated 16.10.2006 after one year of the incident. It was held in case reported in (2010)9 SCC 567 titled C. Muniappan and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu that if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. It was further held that an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of prosecution’s witness. It was held that minor discrepancies are bound to occur in statements of witnesses when testimony of witness is recorded after a gape of time. It was further held that an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of prosecution’s witness. It was held that minor discrepancies are bound to occur in statements of witnesses when testimony of witness is recorded after a gape of time. (See: AIR 1972 SC 2020 titled Sohrab and another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, See: AIR 1985 SC 48 titled State of U.P. vs. M.K. Anthony; See: AIR 1983 SC 753 titled Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat; See: AIR 2007 SC 2257 titled State of Rajasthan vs. Om Parkash; See: (2009)11 SCC 588 titled Prithu alias Prithi Chand and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh; (2009)9 SCC 626 titled State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Santosh Kumar and others; See: AIR 1988 SC 696 titled Appabhai and another vs. State of Gujarat; See: AIR 1999 SC 3544 titled Rammi alias Rameshwar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; See: (2000)1 SCC 247 titled State of H.P. vs. Lekh Raj and another; See: (2004)10 SCC 94 titled Laxman Singh vs. Poonam Singh and others; See: (2012)10 SCC Kuriya and another vs. State of Rajasthan). 24. Offence under Section 511 IPC is a step towards commission of offence after preparation. (See AIR 1961 SC 1698 titled Abhayanand Mishra vs. State of Bihar)In view of above stated facts we hold that learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by prosecution and we hold that learned trial Court has committed miscarriage of justice by way of acquitting the accused. We set aside the judgment of learned trial Court and we convict the accused under Section 511 IPC read with Section 376 IPC. We hold that prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused had attempted to commit rape upon minor prosecutrix intentionally and voluntarily. 25. Now convicted be heard on quantum of sentence on. Convicted be produced before us by way of non-bailable warrant.