Judgment Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. Petitioner is accused in FIR No. 149 of 2013, registered against him on 10.9.2013 in Police Station, Rampur, District Shimla, under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(I)(XII) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He has been arrested in this case on 11.9.2013. Since then, he is in custody. 2. He allegedly subjected the prosecutrix (name withheld) to sexual intercourse at such a time when she was cutting grass from a field in the nullah nearby to her house. The accused/petitioner allegedly came from behind and caught hold her arm and forcibly made her to lie down. She raised alarm, however, the accused/petitioner gagged her mouth with her “Dhathu”. Thereafter, he untied her salwar. He also removed his pants and underwear and subjected her to sexual intercourse against her will and without her consent. He threatened the prosecutrix to do away with her life if she discloses the incident to anyone. She, however, narrated the incident to her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. Her husband was away from the house to Rohru side to work there as a labourer. However, in the evening, when her brother-in-law (Jeth) came, she narrated the incident to him also. On that day itself, she accompanied by her brother-in-law and sister-in-law went to Police Station and lodged the report against the accused/petitioner. 3. It has been alleged that the accused/petitioner is innocent and has been implicated in this case falsely on the ground of enmity. The report received from Forensic Science Laboratory has also been pressed into service. 4. Having gone through the record, the statement of the prosecutrix, prima-facie, implicate the accused/petitioner with the commission of alleged offence. It is well settled that the statement of the prosecutrix, if otherwise inspire confidence, is sufficient to record finding of conviction against the offender. Otherwise also, there being no delay in registration of the case, it is difficult to believe at this stage that the FIR has been registered against the accused/petitioner on the ground of enmity or any other extraneous consideration. No doubt, the report issued by the Forensic Science Laboratory did not prima facie disclose the commission of sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, however, such report is only a piece of evidence and not the exclusive proof of commission or non-commission of sexual intercourse. No doubt, the report issued by the Forensic Science Laboratory did not prima facie disclose the commission of sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, however, such report is only a piece of evidence and not the exclusive proof of commission or non-commission of sexual intercourse. Otherwise also, the veracity and authenticity of the report has to be testified by the competent Court at the time of trial. The trial against the accused/petitioner has already commenced and fixed on day to day basis for recording the prosecution evidence from 3.3.3014 onwards. 5. In view of the gravity of the offence and deterrent punishment, provided under the law against an offender, if held guilty of commission of such an offence, the possibility of the accused/petitioner to terrorize the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence cannot be ruled out. Therefore, there is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. 6. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone.