JUDGMENT This Jail Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the convict challenging that judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Jajpur in S.T. Case No.676 of 2001. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 376(2)(f) of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of 10 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2.The fact of the case of the prosecution is that on 29.01.2001 around 6.00 p.m., the victim girl (P.W.2) who is the minor daughter of the informant (P.W.4) aged about 7 years had been to see the performance of Puja of Goddess Saraswati near their house. It is stated that the appellant at that point of time called her to nearby Aturi (forest), removed her chadi and having raped her, left the place leaving her there. The informant, father of the victim receiving information about the said incident with her minor daughter, proceeded to the Jajpur Police Station and lodged the information in writing under Ext.3. This necessitated the registration of case and commencement of investigation thereof. 3.On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted, placing appellant to be tried for the above offences. 4.During trial, the appellant took the plea of innocence and false implication on account of prior dispute. The prosecution in order to establish, the charge when examined 10 witnesses, the appellant despite being given the opportunity has examined none. 5.Out of the witnesses examined in course of trial, most important witness is P.W.2, the victim girl and the P.W.4 is her father whereas P.W.1 is the mother. P.W.5 and 9 have also been cited as witness to the occurrence whereas the P.W.3 and 6 are the witnesses to the seizures of the wearing apparels of the victim and the appellant respectively. P.W.7 is doctor who examined the victim and P.W.10 is another doctor who examined the appellant. The I.O. also been examined as P.W.8. 6.The Trial Court having formulated the point for determination as to whether on 29.01.2001 around 6.00 p.m. the appellant committed rape on the victim a minor girl of below 12 years, has gone to analyze the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The I.O. also been examined as P.W.8. 6.The Trial Court having formulated the point for determination as to whether on 29.01.2001 around 6.00 p.m. the appellant committed rape on the victim a minor girl of below 12 years, has gone to analyze the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Upon analysis and assessment of the same, the trial Court has arrived at the conclusion in answering the said point in favour of the prosecution holding that the case against the appellant for commission of offence under Section 376(2)(f) of Indian Penal Code has been established. Resultantly, the appellant has been found guilty of the said offence and thus having been convicted; sentenced as stated above which is now impugned in this appeal, at the instance of the convict from inside the jail. 7.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence of the victim girl, P.W.2 is highly improbable and bristled with infirmities as well as absurdities. It is his submission that other evidence of the parents as well as that of P.Ws. 5 & 9 ought not to have been relied upon the fact setting of the case. According to him, the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is not proper and the Court below has been swayed away by the nature of allegation and the minority of the victim and has thus erred in law as well as in fact in fastening guilt upon the appellant. Therefore, he contends that the appellant is liable to be acquitted of the charge. 8.Learned Additional Government Advocate while supporting the finding rendered by the trial Court submits that the appreciation of evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the present case has been made absolutely in a proper manner as is required under the law and regard being had to the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, according to him the finding of guilt is unassailable. 9.On such rival submission, this Court is now called upon to go through the evidence let in by the prosecution in finding out the complicity of the appellant in commission of rape upon the victim, P.W.2 on the relevant date and time. And accordingly, find out as to whether the judgment of conviction and sentence are to be maintained or not. And accordingly, find out as to whether the judgment of conviction and sentence are to be maintained or not. As already stated P.W.2 is the victim; she being not in a position to stage her age, the trial Court has ascertained her age to be in between 7 to 8 years and in the F.I.R., the P.W.4 has indicated the age of P.W.2 to be 7 years, which has been proved as Ext.3. On going through the deposition of P.W.2 and 4, it is seen that this aspect of age has not been challenged at all. Next regarding the incident, the evidence of P.W.2 is that on that date the appellant took her to the nearby bushy area from near the Puja Pandal and making her lie on the bushy field, removed his own pant and then her chadi. It is next stated which is recorded in verbatim as the appellant “Karila” which can’t be given any other meaning than raping. It is also her evidence that her uncle (P.W.5) came there, took her to the house and left with her mother before whom she narrated the incident and then turn she stated that before the father on his arrival who took her to the police station. She has also stated to have been taken to the hospital for medical examination on police requisition. This victim minor girl, of counsel has not stated to have sustained injury on her private part and on her body while stating that she was lifted by the appellant on her shoulder when she did not raise any alarm. It is also her evidence that the appellant did commit sexual intercourse for a minute or two before leaving her. She has denied to have been tutored in the matter. At this stage, its necessary to consider the submission in specific by the learned counsel for the appellant that the medical evidence of P.W.7 belies the version of victim (P.W.2). P.W.7 in his evidence has stated to have found one bruise of the size of 1 1/2” X 1/2” X 1/2” of semicircular shape on the left side of the face and abrasion on left posterior side of vaginal orifice and to have noticed stain marks on her thigh while further stating that sexual contact might have been tried resulting in injury of vaginal orifice of course P.W.2 has denied to have sustained any injury. But it must be borne in mind that the child was aged around 7 years and at that age her non-marking these injuries on vaginal orifice and abrasion is not unusual. Rather the medical evidence can be taken to provide assurance to the evidence of P.W.2. It’s the common experience that on account of tender age and immature faculty, it is impossible to expect any precise narrative of what the child witness had witnessed and when leading questions are put to their mouth in cross-examination, they are liable to give affirmative answers without understanding exactly what they were being questioned about. It is pertinent to state here that this child witness has been administered oath by the trial Court when she was found to be giving rational answers to the questions put to her and thus capable of being able to understand the implication of oath. 10.Reason and experience as came down scarcely warrant the opinion that less credit is due to the testimony of a child than to that of an adult. In the childhood, the facilities of observation and memory are usually more active than in after life, while the motive for falsehood are then less numerous and powerful. At the same time, there remains the scope of tutoring as they are ordinarily susceptible to it. So that aspect has to be overruled as a measure of caution and once that aspect is which excludes the motives remaining hidden for even others standing as tutors, it stands as the evidence of impeachable character as the child is ordinarily not expected to lie having no such worldly knowledge and then having firm idea in mind that whatever is to be said is that the truth more so when far them no one stands as an enemy and their mind is not taken as crooked. Thus if a child speaks falsely, he is most inevitably detected but if he be a witness of truth, he avoids that imputaion of dishonestly, which sometimes attaches to older witness, who, though substantially telling the truth, are apt to throw discredit on their testimony, by a too anxious desire to reconcile every apparent in consistency. Thus if a child speaks falsely, he is most inevitably detected but if he be a witness of truth, he avoids that imputaion of dishonestly, which sometimes attaches to older witness, who, though substantially telling the truth, are apt to throw discredit on their testimony, by a too anxious desire to reconcile every apparent in consistency. In the instant case, I find that the evidence of P.W.2 being read in entirety is found to be having a ring of truth and the question of tutoring is over ruled when her narration of incident stands natural and her description as plain and simple as a child without giving any hint of maturity when it could have been otherwise commented upon. However, the evidence of P.W.2 also finds corroboration from doctor’s evidence as stated above. Thus, I find that the evidence of doctor provides ample corroboration to the evidence of P.W.2 and without any other evidence and in the absence of any evidence to show that P.W.2 had any reason to falsely implicate the appellant when no such facts or circumstances are apparently even seen, the prosecution can be said to have established the case of rape upon P.W.2 by the appellant. Furthermore, the report of the Scientific Officer Ext.1 goes to show that the frock (M.O.1) of P.W.2 was found to contain patch of human semen of ‘O’ group substance and that is also found out on the half pant of the appellant. The seizure of the wearing apparels have been duly proved not only by the I.O., P.W.8 but also through evidence of witnesses, P.W.3 and P.W.4 the father. Simply there remains some discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.3 and 6 with regard to the seizure of M.O.-1 to 4 which are frock and chadi of the victim P.W.2 and appellant’s pant and half pant. 11.The evidence of P.W.2 is receiving further assurance from the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 that the victim had been to the Puja Pandal when appellant called her to the spot and thereafter the incident having happened there has been disclosed by P.W.2 before P.W.1 immediately on her arrival which P.W.1 also states. 11.The evidence of P.W.2 is receiving further assurance from the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 that the victim had been to the Puja Pandal when appellant called her to the spot and thereafter the incident having happened there has been disclosed by P.W.2 before P.W.1 immediately on her arrival which P.W.1 also states. The only discrepancy appears in the evidence of P.W.1 vis-a-vis the evidence of P.W.2 that she had not stated before the police in her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. to have gone to the spot with Raju, P.W.5 which she is now stating and so also the P.W.2 stating in the same vein. So, even if that part of evidence is excluded, it is not of that significance to have any adverse impact of the version of P.W.2, which is otherwise found to be wholly believable. The evidence of P.W.4 also is that as post occurrence witnesses to have heard everything from his wife and getting further confirmation from P.W.2, victim, so also the evidence of P.W.5. So on independent analysis of the evidence also, I am not in a position to record a disagreement with the finding of guilt rendered by Court below and thus I find the trial Court to have made the analysis of evidence in a just and proper manner. Therefore, the said finding that it is the appellant who committed the offence under Section 376 (2)(f) of I.P.C. is given to the seal of approval. 12.Lastly coming to the sentence, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that it is on a higher side. The punishment prescribed for offence under Section 376(2)(f) of I.P.C. is rigorous imprisonment for term which would not be less than 10 years which may be for life and also fine. In view of the same, when I find that the minimum sentence has been imposed, the submission as above fails as also when no such adequate or special reasons are culled out in the facts and circumstances of the case and from evidence on record impressing this Court to make any reduction thereof in accordance with the proviso thereto. The fine imposed in the case is rather minimal and so also the default sentence. 13.Resultantly, the Jail Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.