JUDGMENT : V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The appellant is convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions Trial No. 112 of 2007 on 22.12.2011. By the said Judgment and Order of conviction, the learned Judge of the Court below convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(f) of the Indian Penal Code and directed that the appellant should suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. From the jail the appellant has preferred the appeal challenging his sentence as imposed upon him. At the time of admission of the present appeal itself, this Court has appointed learned Counsel Mr. D.A. Sonwane to provide him legal assistance. 2. The prosecution case is as under: "Devangana (PW-1) is the mother of prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was aged about three years at the time of incident. Hereinafter the prosecutrix will be referred to as "P" in order to screen her identity." 3. Devangana, at the relevant time, was residing at Banosa (Tq. Daryapur, District Amravati) along with her husband Chandrakant and "P". Her sister Seema Sonkar (PW-6) was residing at Barakholya area, which is about 10 to 12 houses away from the house of Devangana. 4. The First Information Report is lodged by Devangana. The said oral report is at Exh. 9. By the said report, it was reported by the first informant Devangana that, on 1.3.2007, at about 1.00 p.m., her younger sister Seema (PW-6) came to her house. After sometime, when Seema started to proceed to her house "P", a minor girl was obstinate that she will also accompany with Seema. Therefore, Seema took her and proceeded to her house. 5. At 6 O'clock in the evening, Seema came to the house of the first informant and asked as to whether "P" has returned to the house or not. The first informant replied that "P" has not yet returned. Seema then disclosed that "P" was playing in front of her house and she disappeared. Upon such information, both Devangana (PW-1), Seema (PW-6) and her husband Ramesh Sonkar started making search of "P". At "Shetkari Sadan", Gopal Waghmare (PW-8) met them and informed that he has reached her daughter to her house. Therefore, the first informant immediately returned to her house. Upon such information, both Devangana (PW-1), Seema (PW-6) and her husband Ramesh Sonkar started making search of "P". At "Shetkari Sadan", Gopal Waghmare (PW-8) met them and informed that he has reached her daughter to her house. Therefore, the first informant immediately returned to her house. At that time, she got the knowledge that her daughter ("P") was taken to the hospital of Dr. Tale by her husband. Therefore, immediately she went to Dr. Tale's hospital and at that time, she noticed that blood was oozing from her vagina and found injuries on her leg and cheek. Dr. Tale advised her to take "P" to the Government hospital. At that time, police came there and therefore, she took her daughter "P" along with police to the Government hospital. 6. PW-18 is Bhalchandra Mahajan. On 1.3.2007, he was discharging his duties as a Police Station Officer of Daryapur Police Station. On the said day, he received information on telephone that rape is committed on a minor girl and that minor girl is taken to the hospital of Dr. Tale. Therefore, he along with the police staff went to the dispensary of Dr. Tale. In the dispensary of Dr. Tale, he met with Devangana (PW-1), mother of the minor girl. The minor girl "P" and her mother was taken to the Rural hospital, Daryapur in a police vehicle by Bhalchandra Mahajan (PW-18). In the meanwhile, he also reduced into writing the oral report lodged by Devangana as per her narration (Exh. 9). The printed F.I.R. is at Exh. 10. Since the report was disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, the offence was registered against unknown person on 1.3.2007 vide Crime No. 31 of 2007 with Police Station, Daryapur for the offence punishable under Section 376(f) of the Indian Penal Code. 7. It was noticed by Bhalchandra Mahajan (PW-18) that similar type of offences were committed during the period from 1.3.2007 to 8.3.2007 at Kholapur Police Station and search of the accused was going on. The offender was arrested by Kholapur Police Station. The Investigating Officer Bhalchandra Mahajan obtained a transfer warrant from the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Daryapur. Under the arrest panchanama (Exh. 65), the appellant was arrested. During his arrest and during the police custody on 21.4.2007, the Investigating Officer Mahajan called the mother of "P" along with "P" and her sister in the Police Station. The Investigating Officer Bhalchandra Mahajan obtained a transfer warrant from the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Daryapur. Under the arrest panchanama (Exh. 65), the appellant was arrested. During his arrest and during the police custody on 21.4.2007, the Investigating Officer Mahajan called the mother of "P" along with "P" and her sister in the Police Station. As soon as "P" noticed the appellant, she shivered and immediately embraced her mother. The panchanama of the said incident is reduced into writing, which it is at Exh. 12. 8. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Daryapur passed the order of committal on 18.12.2007 since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The charge was framed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(f) of the Indian Penal Code by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur. 9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur found that the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellant and accordingly, he convicted him as observed in the opening paragraph of the present Judgment. 10. We have heard Mr. D.A. Sonwane, learned Counsel (appointed) for the appellant and Mr. N.S. Khubalkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State in extenso. Both the learned Counsel submitted their respective cases with vehemence. With their able assistance, in order to re-appreciate the prosecution case, we have ourselves minutely scanned the entire record and proceedings. 11. On 1.3.2007 itself, "P" was taken to the Rural hospital, Daryapur for her medical examination. Bhalchandra Mahajan (PW-18), the Investigating Officer, took "P" to the Rural hospital along with her mother Devangana (PW-1). At that time, lady Police Constable Sheela, L.P.C. No. 1143 was accompanying. The fact of taking "P" along with her parents with lady Police Constable to the Rural hospital, Daryapur is corroborated by Dr. Dipti Manohar Hade (PW-15). 12. On 1.3.2007, Dr. Dipti Hade (PW-15), who was working as a Medical Officer at the Rural hospital, Daryapur examined "P". On examination of "P", she noticed following injuries: "1. Abrasion 2 x 0.5 cm left side of cheek region. 2. Contusion 3 x 1.5 cm left side in between eye and ear. 3. Superficial lacerated wound 1 x 0.5 cm left side chin region. 4. Multiple abrasion on left leg region. Accordingly to the doctor, age of the injury was 3 to 4 hours before examination. "P" was examined at 8.40 p.m. on 1.3.2007. Dr. 2. Contusion 3 x 1.5 cm left side in between eye and ear. 3. Superficial lacerated wound 1 x 0.5 cm left side chin region. 4. Multiple abrasion on left leg region. Accordingly to the doctor, age of the injury was 3 to 4 hours before examination. "P" was examined at 8.40 p.m. on 1.3.2007. Dr. Dipti Hade also noticed bleeding P.V. and laceration to vagina. Accordingly, she issued the Medical Certificate Exh. 49. She referred "P" to Dafrin hospital, Amravati for the opinion of a Gynaecologist." 13. Dr. Shyamkumar Vijay Jadhav (PW-16) was the Medical Officer at District Womens hospital, Amravati (commonly known as "Dafrin hospital"). Dr. Jadhav examined "P" and he found the private part of "P" i.e. labia majora and labia minora was oedematus. He found that the hymen was torn and congested. The forchette was fresh torn. He noticed that there was first degree perineal tear and slight oozing from that perineal wound. Accordingly to Dr. Shyamkumar Jadhav, there was forceful intercourse with the patient. He also took blood sample of "P". The Medical Certificate and opinion of Dr. Shyamkumar Jadhav (PW-16) is at Exh. 52. 14. When Devangana (PW-1) and Seema Sonkar (PW-6) saw "P" for the first time in the Police Station, they noticed that blood was oozing from the vagina of "P" and they also noticed injuries on her person. 15. In view of the medical examination of "P" coupled with the Injury Certificate Exh. 49 and the opinion of Gynaecologist Dr. Shyamkumar Vijay Jadhav (PW-16) and his opinion Exh. 52, it is clear that forceful sexual assault was committed on the minor girl "P', whose age was only three years at the time of incident. Accordingly, we record our finding that "P" was subjected to sexual assault. 16. The next question that has to be answered by this Court is as to whether the appellant is responsible for the atrocious act which was committed on "P". 17. The Court cannot expect ocular evidence in respect of atrocious act like sexual assault on a minor. Normally such offences are committed in secluded places and which are normally not visible easily. 18. Seema Sonkar (PW-6) is the maternal aunt of "P". She was not residing far away from the house of Devangana, mother of "P". 17. The Court cannot expect ocular evidence in respect of atrocious act like sexual assault on a minor. Normally such offences are committed in secluded places and which are normally not visible easily. 18. Seema Sonkar (PW-6) is the maternal aunt of "P". She was not residing far away from the house of Devangana, mother of "P". On visit of Seema to the house of Devangana, if "P" was adamant that she will accompany Seema, there is nothing unusual about it as there is a tendency of small children to go out of house along with the guest visiting their house especially when the guest is closely related. Seema being the maternal aunt of "P", it must have been very natural reaction of "P" to insist that she will accompany Seema. There was nothing unusual on the part of Devangana to permit "P" to go along with her sister Seema (PW-6). 19. The prosecution evidence shows that, at 6 O'clock in the evening, Seema came to the house of Devangana to enquire about "P". Such visit is most natural since Seema (PW-6) noticed absence of "P" from her house. When she was playing in front of her house. Thinking of Seema that "P" must have gone to her house while playing, according to us, is also natural one because of the fact that their houses are situated just 10 to 12 houses away from each other. Thus, the distance must not be far much. Upon visit to the house of Devangana by Seema at 6 O'clock on 1.3.2007 when it was found that "P" had not returned to her house, there was right and natural reaction on the part of Devangana, the concerned mother and Seema to start the search of "P" along with the husband of Seema. The evidence of Devangana discloses that, at that time, it was informed to her that her daughter has reached to her house by Gopal Waghmare. 20. Gopal Ramkrushna Waghmare is examined by the prosecution as prosecution witness No. 8. He is the most important witness to connect the appellant to the present crime. That since there appears to be some mistake in recording English version of this witness, we have gone through the vernacular version of this witness Gopal Waghmare. 21. 20. Gopal Ramkrushna Waghmare is examined by the prosecution as prosecution witness No. 8. He is the most important witness to connect the appellant to the present crime. That since there appears to be some mistake in recording English version of this witness, we have gone through the vernacular version of this witness Gopal Waghmare. 21. Evidence of Gopal Waghmare (PW-8) would reveal that it was intimated to him in the evening about missing of the girl by Seema. That time, it was disclosed to him about wearing apparel of that minor girl at the time when she went missing. 22. His evidence further reveals that he noticed a girl at about 6.00 p.m. wearing the orange coloured frock with one man. That time, that girl was weeping, which raised suspicion in the mind of Gopal. He, therefore, made inquiries about that girl with that man. Upon that, it was informed to Gopal by that man that he found that girl in the market. Thereupon Gopal asked that man that they must reach the girl to her parents. He took that girl from that man and they proceeded towards the house of that minor girl. Though for some distance that man followed Gopal, thereafter, without giving any intimation to Gopal, he disappeared. He handed over that girl to the grandmother of that girl. 23. After lodging of report Exh. 9 with police, since the name of Gopal Waghmare was appearing in the F.I.R. as a person who has given intimation to the first informant, the police Authorities on the same day called Gopal Waghmare in the night for inquiry. During the inquiry, he informed police that he can identify the person with whom "P" was accompanying. 24. After the arrest of the appellant, the Investigating Officer conducted test identification parade. Rajkumar Kshirsagar (PW-13) was Special Executive Magistrate at the relevant time. On 18.6.2007, he received letter (Exh. 41) for holding and conducting the test identification parade. Accordingly, he gave communication Dt. 22.6.2006 to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Amravati (Exh. 42) for making arrangement to hold and conduct test identification parade. On 23.6.2007, Rajkumar Kshirsagar (PW-13) conducted test identification parade. Gopal Waghmare (PW-8) attended the Central Jail for the said test identification parade. 25. The test identification parade was conducted by Rajkumar Kshirsagar in accordance with guidelines. Accordingly, he gave communication Dt. 22.6.2006 to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Amravati (Exh. 42) for making arrangement to hold and conduct test identification parade. On 23.6.2007, Rajkumar Kshirsagar (PW-13) conducted test identification parade. Gopal Waghmare (PW-8) attended the Central Jail for the said test identification parade. 25. The test identification parade was conducted by Rajkumar Kshirsagar in accordance with guidelines. Gopal Waghmare (PW-8) identified present appellant in the said identification parade as a person in whose company "P" was found, when she was reached to her home by Gopal (PW-8). The memorandum of test identification parade is duly proved and it is at Exh. 44. 26. Gopal Waghmare (PW-8) has also testified in his evidence about the said test identification parade and the fact that he identified the present appellant in the said test identification parade. 27. One Bhimrao Pundlik Gulhane (PW-7) was having irrigated land at village Nagthana having farm house in the field. The appellant was working with him. The appellant was in his service from December, 2006 to March, 2007. His evidence would reveal that the appellant worked on 1.3.2007 till noon and thereafter, he left the farm house to attend the farm house only on 8 a.m. on 2.3.2007 and demanded Rs. 500/- from him on the pretext to go to his brother's place at village Asara. It is established on record that village Banosa, which is part and parcel of Daryapur, is 30 kilometers away from the field of Bhimrao situated at Nagthana. However, there are buses, auto and other private vehicles which are frequently plying on that route. What is important to note is that when the appellant got his employment with his employer Bhimrao, he disclosed his identity as Sanjay Manohar Wankhede. The appellant is duly identified by this witness in the Court. 28. The Chemical Analyser's report shows that the frock of "P" which was stained with blood was having blood stains of human blood of group "A". It is revealed that the blood group of "P" is 'A'. 29. Thus, it is clear from the survey of the prosecution case that: "a) for a period may be for a short duration, "P" was missing from her house. b) she was found in weeping condition in the company of the appellant by Gopal Waghmare (PW-8). c) Gopal Waghmare asked the appellant to reach the girl to her house. 29. Thus, it is clear from the survey of the prosecution case that: "a) for a period may be for a short duration, "P" was missing from her house. b) she was found in weeping condition in the company of the appellant by Gopal Waghmare (PW-8). c) Gopal Waghmare asked the appellant to reach the girl to her house. d) though the appellant accompanied Gopal Waghmare (PW-8) to a short distance, without giving any intimation to Gopal Waghmare (PW-8), he disappeared. e) during the investigation, when minor girl "P saw the appellant, she got frightened and embraced her mother as per panchanama (Exh. 12). f) in the test identification parade, Gopal (PW-8) identified the appellant as the same person in whose company he found "P" in a weeping condition. g) the appellant gave his false identity to his employer Bhimrao (PW-7). h) Bhimrao (PW-7) identified the appellant as the same person who has given him incorrect identity. i) absence of the appellant from his usual working place from 1.3.2007 to 10 O'clock on 2.7.2007. j) Chemical Analyser's report shows blood stains on the clothes of "P". k) during the medical examination of "P", Gynaecologist Dr. Shyamkumar Jadhav (PW-16) found that forceful sexual intercourse is committed on "P" (as per his opinion Exh. 50)." The above circumstances clearly shows that the appellant is the person who is responsible for atrocities of sexual assault on the minor girl "P". 30. By way of passing reference, it is to be pointed out in the present Judgment that, in the record, there is a communication made by one Mr. S.V. Khatavkar, Superintendent, Nagpur Central Jail to the Secretary, Home Department (Prison), State of Maharashtra, Mumbai, Dt. 14.1.2009. The said communication appears to have been received to Court below vide Inward No. 35, Dt. 21.1.2009. The said communication shows that the appellant has already been held be guilty of committing the offences punishable under Sections 376, 377 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Session Trial No. 183 of 2007 and he was sentenced to death by the Court. 31. The prosecution, according to us, has proved its case successfully against the appellant. The present appeal is without any merit and is dismissed accordingly. The fees of Mr. D.A. Sonwane, learned Counsel (appointed) for the appellant are quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.