JUDGMENT : ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.:–Sole appellant Sintu Kumar who has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC vide judgment dated 14.12.2010 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years as well as also fined Rs.10,000/- in default thereof to undergo R.I. for one year vide order dated 20.12.2010 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Barh, Patna in Sessions Trial No.125 of 2007 has challenged the aforesaid finding under instant appeal. 2. Ranju Devi (PW-7), mother of victim Neha Kumari aged about 3 years had given her fardbeyan on 17.10.2006 disclosing therein that Sintu Kumar has visiting terms as well as was occasionally offering toffee and other article to children being her neighbour. On previous day i.e. on 16.10.2006 Sintu Kumar came and took away Raju, her nephew aged about 4 years and her daughter Neha. After sometime came with aforesaid two children and disclosed that he had offered chocolate. Again at about 05:00 P.M. he took away her daughter Neha from near her house. Seeing absence of her daughter she began to search and during course thereof, she found her daughter in a room locked from outside at the “Gohal” (cowshed) of Tanik Sao. With the help of villagers she was taken out. Her pant and vest was found soaked with blood. 3. On the basis thereof, Mokama P.S. Case No.169 of 2006 was registered; whereupon investigation was taken up. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was submitted. Accordingly, appellant was put on trial which culminated ultimately in his conviction and sentence, the subject matter of instant appeal. 4. The defence, as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is of complete denial of occurrence. However, neither any DW nor any Exhibit has been adduced on his behalf. 5. From the lower court record it transpires that altogether twelve PWs have been examined out of whom PW-1 is Angad Tiwari, PW-2 is Ragani Devi, PW-3 is Munna Singh, PW-4 is Biltu Kumar, PW-5 is Manish Kumar, PW-6 is Chunnu Kumar, PW-7 is Ranju Devi, PW-8 is Hawaldar, Agastu Topo, PW-9 is Debeshwar Pathak, PW-10 is Rajesh Ranjan, PW-11 is Dr. Nilam Sinha, PW-12 is victim Nehal Kumari as well as also examined CW-1, Rabindra Kumar Sinha. Ext.-1 to 1/1 are signature of seizure list witness. Nilam Sinha, PW-12 is victim Nehal Kumari as well as also examined CW-1, Rabindra Kumar Sinha. Ext.-1 to 1/1 are signature of seizure list witness. Ext.-1 to 2/1 is signature of informant as well as FIR attesting witness, Ext.-2/2 is fardbeyan, Ext.-2/3 endorsement thereupon, PW-3- Formal FIR, Ext.-1/2 Seizure List, Ext.-4- Injury Slip, Ext.-5 FSL report, Ext.-6 Injury report, Ext.-A Apron, Ext.-B- Box, Ext.-C- FSL report, Ext.-D- FSL Work Sheet. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently challenged the judgment impugned on so many grounds. The first and foremost ground happens to be that none of the witnesses so examined on behalf of prosecution had claimed to have witnessed Neha Kumari, victim in company of appellant and on account thereof, disclosure made by PW-7, informant as well as mother of victim that appellant had taken away Neha Kumari at about 05:00 PM and since thereafter she was found missing happens to be absolutely false. In continuty with the aforesaid event, it has been submitted that virtually none had claimed as an eye witness to suggest that victim was in company of appellant. It has also been submitted that victim was taken out from a room situated at “Gohal” of Tanik Sah, but the same is found uncorroborated on account of non-examination of Tanik Sah. From the fardbeyan as well as evidence of the witnesses, specific disclosure has been made that the room was locked from outside and the room was opened with the help of villagers. However, the Investigating Officer did not find any sort of mark, broken lock, presence of semen at the spot to justify the allegation that Neha was raped as well as having been confined in a room. 7. The learned counsel also submitted that theory of rape appears to be individual perception without any corroboration and for that referred evidence of PW-11, Dr. Nilam Singh as well as evidence of PW-9, Deveshwar Pathak, the Investigating Officer. Referring their evidence, Ext.-4 and 5 have also been brought to notice to suggest that Investigating Officer had not found it a case of rape while preparing injury report (Ext.-4) and in likewise manner, the PW-11 through Ext.-5, the injury report ruled out it a case of rape. Apart from this, there happens to be complete absence of ocular evidence on this very score. 8. Apart from this, there happens to be complete absence of ocular evidence on this very score. 8. It has further been submitted that evidence of victim Neha is of no use because of the fact that being of tender age at the time of so alleged occurrence she was unable to perceive the same and that happens to be reason behind that she was not examined by the Investigating Officer during course of investigation. However, during course of trial approximately after three years she was examined as PW-12 and after going through her deposition, it is crystal clear that the same happens to be worthless being un-credible due to loopholes persisting there. It has also been submitted that FSL report is also of no use in the background of the infirmities persisting in the prosecution case which loosen its reliability. So, the non-appreciation of the aforesaid vital infirmities by the learned trial court makes the judgment impugned unworthy and on account thereof, is fit to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor while supporting the finding recorded by the learned trial court submitted that there happens to be no infirmity persisting over impugned judgment because of the fact that the learned trial court had taking into account the ocular as well as medical evidence which clearly discloses commission of rape upon victim Neha Kumari by the appellant as such, the judgment impugned is fit to be confirmed. 10. Two kinds of expert evidence is available on the record. The first one, injury report granted by PW-11 and the second happens to be the FSL report brought up on record by the CW-1. The FSL report relates with examination of pant as well as vest of victim Neha Kumari. From evidence of CW-1, it is apparent that blood stain “Ganji” and one blood stain “Janghiya” which was placed for serology examination in sealed condition by the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was examined by him in accordance with adopting recommended procedure. While “Ganji” was found soaked with bloodstain only “Janghiya” was soaked with blood as well as semen and the same has been marked for an Exhibit-C as well as Exhibit- D. 11. During course of cross-examination the defence could not be able to sack his evidence save and except under para-17 that group of blood and semen was not detected. While “Ganji” was found soaked with bloodstain only “Janghiya” was soaked with blood as well as semen and the same has been marked for an Exhibit-C as well as Exhibit- D. 11. During course of cross-examination the defence could not be able to sack his evidence save and except under para-17 that group of blood and semen was not detected. That has got no much of relevance as the appellant during course of investigation was out of cloth of Investigating Officer and so could claim non-compliance of Section 53(A) of the Cr.P.C. In likewise manner had not challenged that the blood having been found over “Ganji” and “Janghiya” was not of Neha. 12. In continuity with the aforesaid event, it is evident from Ext.-1/2 Production-cum-seizure list prepared on 17.10.2006 at about 11:30 AM that mother of victim namely Ranju Devi, PW-7 had produced “Ganji” and “Janghiya” soaked with blood in presence of two witnesses Angad Tiwary (PW-1) and Munna Singh (PW-3) by PW-9 Deweshwar Pathak and all of them have supported the prosecution version. 13. Now coming to the other aspect, it is evident that PW-9 had prepared Ext.-4, the injury report also 17.10.2006 while forwarding the victim Neha Kumari for examination wherein request was made for submission of report after examining the injured and the injury has been shown blood like fluid oozing out from vagina and in mechanical way, although her attention has not been drawn during course of evidence by the prosecution, PW-11, Dr. Nilam Singh examined the victim and issued the injury report (Ext.-5) as:– (a) A lacerated wound 2 cm x ¼ cm x muscle deep below the vagina in the perineum. (b) Abrasion on both sides of urinary meatus. According to doctor, the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance which she also opined may be caused by penis. However, during cross-examination she had clearly stated that she had not suspected it to be a case of rape. 14. Now before coming to other material witnesses, the evidence of PW-12, the victim is to be taken into consideration. The court had examined her mental status and then examined her. Seeing the appellant in dock she identified and further disclosed that he had done bad thing with her. He had taken her away from house. 14. Now before coming to other material witnesses, the evidence of PW-12, the victim is to be taken into consideration. The court had examined her mental status and then examined her. Seeing the appellant in dock she identified and further disclosed that he had done bad thing with her. He had taken her away from house. During course of examination she had further stated that Sintu was shown to her by Chunnu Mamu with whom she had come to depose. He had also disclosed his name. Then had detailed the kinds of bad thing but not the rape. 15. PW-1, apart from being the production cum seizure list witness as disclosed above happens to be hearsay witness over rape which he came to know from the persons of the surrounding. During course of cross-examination at para-4 he had himself disclosed that he had not seen incidence of rape. He had also stated that none of the eye witnesses had claimed so but the victim herself had disclosed the occurrence whereupon he was not at all cross-examined subsequently. In para-9 and 10 he had stated that he had gone to “Gohal” of Tanik Sao. He had gone inside the room. He had also disclosed the boundary. In para-11, he had detailed the event how the people have entered inside the room. In para-12 there happens to be contradiction wherein he had admitted that he had not stated before the police that Sintu had committed rape upon Neha Kumari. 16. PW-2 is the Bhabhi of informant (PW-7). During examination-in-chief she had stated that Sintu had taken away her son Raju aged about 4 years and her Bhagni aged about three years on 16-10-2006 at 04:00 P.M. and provided them toffee. Thereafter, he took back both of them to her house. Later on, at about 05:00 PM Sintu Kumar took away Neha Kumari who did not come back and on account thereof, they all began to search and during course thereof Neha was found at “Gohal” of Tanik Sao which was locked from outside. Neha was groaning where upon she was perceived and taken out after unlocking. At that very time she was in pool of blood. “Ganji” and “Janghiya” was soaked with blood. Sintu Kumar had committed rape upon her. Neha was groaning where upon she was perceived and taken out after unlocking. At that very time she was in pool of blood. “Ganji” and “Janghiya” was soaked with blood. Sintu Kumar had committed rape upon her. She had further stated that she had seen Sintu while taking away Neha at about 05:00 P.M. During cross-examination, she had stated in para-3 that she had not seen Sintu committing rape. She had seen Sintu taking away Neha. When they have seen Neha, her “Chhadi” was soaked with blood. Furthermore, the victim herself had disclosed the event. At para-4 of her cross-examination she had categorically stated that Sintu Kumar was her neighbour and on account thereof, was on visiting term. He used to come many times and at some occasion he used to provide toffee to the children. In para-7 she had disclosed that she had seen Sintu taking away Neha at about 05:00 P.M. After 20-25 minutes, thereafter they began to search Neha and during course thereof she had disclosed to her Bhabhi as well as mother-in-law. At that very time there was no male member. Chunnu Kumar, her Debar (PW-6) had come later on who was accordingly informed. In para-10 she had stated that Tanik Sah had raised alarm at about 05:30 PM that the girl is at his “Gohal”. At that very time he was gone to milch cow. In para-13 she had stated that Tanik Sao himself taken out Neha from “Gohal”. Thereafter, Tanik Sao took Nehal to Manoj, compounder but Manoj had not given any medicine. However, Neha was given medicine from the shop of Panditjee where her Debar Chunnu was employed. Para-20 happens to be contradiction of having not over material aspect. 17. PW-3 is Munna, one of the seizure list witness who also happens to be hearsay witness. Furthermore, he joined the group who had gone to search out victim Neha and took out her from Gohal of Tanik Sao. During cross-examination, there happens to be nothing adverse because of the fact that he was not at all shacked on those very score as it evident from under para-14, 15 and 17. However from para-18 his suspicious conduct is exposed on account of having the facts scribed over his palm during course of evidence. 18. During cross-examination, there happens to be nothing adverse because of the fact that he was not at all shacked on those very score as it evident from under para-14, 15 and 17. However from para-18 his suspicious conduct is exposed on account of having the facts scribed over his palm during course of evidence. 18. PW-4 was also examined on the same score but from para-4 of the cross-examination, it is evident that he had also got scribed the date of occurrence over his palm during course of evidence. In para-6 he had stated that he had not seen rape. He also stated that he had not seen vagina of Neha. He had seen Neha in unconscious condition. In para-7 he stated that he also gone “Gohal” of Tanik Sao from where Neha was taken out. He had further detailed the event under para-19. 19. PW-5 is Mama of victim who had deposed that Sintu Kumar had taken away Neha at about 05:00 PM and since thereafter Neha did not return on account thereof there was search and during course thereof Neha was taken out from “Gohal” of Tanik Sao. During cross-examination at para-3 he had stated that he returned from market at 06:00 PM. When he returned from market he found some sort of talk going on. Victim was traced out and was taken to doctor. 20. PW-6 had also corroborated the narration in same way. PW-7 is the informant as well as mother of victim. She had stated that on 16-10-2006 at about 04:00 PM Raju her nephew was playing with her daughter, the victim. At that very time Sintu came, took away both of them, got toffee and then left them at her house. Sintu again came at 05:00 PM and took away Neha. Thereafter, Neha did not come and on account thereof she along with her Bhabhi gone in her search. During midst thereof, she had seen Manoj carrying victim. Neha was in pool of blood. Her “Chaddhi” was soaked with blood. Manoj had disclosed that Neha was taken out from “Gohal” of Tanik Sao. Manoj had disclosed that Neha was taken out from the “Hoda” of Tanik Sao. Neha was raped and on account thereof she was in pool of blood. Neha had herself disclosed after regaining sense. Neha disclosed the same to her brother. Her “Chaddhi” was soaked with blood. Manoj had disclosed that Neha was taken out from “Gohal” of Tanik Sao. Manoj had disclosed that Neha was taken out from the “Hoda” of Tanik Sao. Neha was raped and on account thereof she was in pool of blood. Neha had herself disclosed after regaining sense. Neha disclosed the same to her brother. Because of the fact that Sintu had taken away Neha therefore she had also suspected against him. She had gone to search out Sintu but was found absconding. Thereafter case was instituted. During cross-examination at para-4 she had stated that at the time of taking out from Hoda of Tanik Sao, her uncle and others were also present. In para-8 she had stated that Neha regained sense on the following morning at about 8-9 AM. Neha was not treated by any doctor at night. However, after regaining sense she had gone to Mokama and from Mokama to Barh where victim was treated by Dr. Poonam Sinha. In para-15 she had stated that on account of oozing of blood she inferred that rape was committed. In para-16 she had stated that she had not gone to place of occurrence. 21. PW-8 is formal in nature as he had produced the FSL report in closed envelope. 22. PW-9 is the Investigating Officer, who had deposed that after getting confidential information he along with officer-in-charge had gone to P.O. village where took statement of informant of Ranju Devi. On being entrusted with the investigation, proceeded therewith and during course thereof seized the “Ganji” and “Janghiya” for that production-cum-seizure list was prepared. He had seen injury of victim Neha Kumari. Prepared injury report and sent her for medical examination at Mokama Referal Hospital but as no doctor was not present, so she was sent to Barh Sub-divisional Hospital. He had inspected the place of occurrence. The first place of occurrence happens to be Drawaja of informant from where Sintu Kumar had taken away victim Neha. The second place of occurrence lies 200-300 yards west of first place of occurrence which happens to be Bathan of Sintu Kumar. He had further detailed the topography thereof wherefrom she was thrown in the Hodda of Tanik Sao. The boundary of Tanik Sao happens to be 4’-5’ height having open space. He took statement of the witnesses got the “Chhadi” and “Janghiya” examined by FSL. He had further detailed the topography thereof wherefrom she was thrown in the Hodda of Tanik Sao. The boundary of Tanik Sao happens to be 4’-5’ height having open space. He took statement of the witnesses got the “Chhadi” and “Janghiya” examined by FSL. On account of having been transferred, handed over charge. During cross-examination at para-10, he had stated that he had already came cross the news that Sintu had surrendered on 23-10-2006 but he had not taken any step for his medical examination. He had not recorded his statement. He had already received medical examination report of Neha on 23-10-2006. He had further stated that he had not put any identification mark over “Janghiya” and “Ganji” because it has become red on account of dryness of blood. He had further stated that the material exhibits were kept at P.S.-Malkhana. He had further admitted that none of the witnesses claimed to be eye witness to occurrence. In para-22 he had clearly stated that he had not seen bloodstain at any of the P.O. In para-24 he had further admitted that he had not tried to record statement of victim. 23. PW-10 is the another I.O. who had simply submitted charge sheet after receipt of the FSL report. 24. After going through the evidence available on the record, it is apparent that none had seen or claimed to be an eye witness to occurrence. It is further evident from the evidence of PW-10, the I.O. that he had inspected the ‘Bathan’ of the appellant on his own identifying the same where rape was committed and there from she was thrown to the “Gohal” of Tanik Sao having not been supported by any of the witness. It is also evident from the evidence of the witnesses that there happens to be inconsistency amongst them with regard to disclosure made by Neha as well as with regard to tracing out of Neha from “Gohal” of Tanik Sao and the informant (PW-7) herself had disclosed that Manoj had carried the victim thereupon. 25. However, it is found conclusively proved from the evidences that both the parties happens to be under cordial relationship being neighbour having no occasion for false implication. Apart from this, from the evidence of PW-2, it is crystal clear that she had seen the appellant taking away Neha at 05:00 PM and that part happens to be unshaken. 25. However, it is found conclusively proved from the evidences that both the parties happens to be under cordial relationship being neighbour having no occasion for false implication. Apart from this, from the evidence of PW-2, it is crystal clear that she had seen the appellant taking away Neha at 05:00 PM and that part happens to be unshaken. That means to say, the victim was last seen in company of appellant and just 15-20 minutes thereof during course of search she was taken out from Gohal of Tanik Sao, having the “Ganji” and “Chhadi” drenched with blood. Further more, as per evidence of doctor PW-11, injuries were found around genital, semen was found over “Janghiya”. In that circumstance, at least the appellant should have explained his status but, he simply kept mum during course of trial. 26. After analyzing the evidence the following circumstances are visualizing:– (a) Presence of appellant at 04:00 PM at the Darwaja of informant and taking away Raju as well as Neha and after, providing toffee returned back. (b) Again took away Neha at 05:00 PM © Neha was traced out from “Gohal” of Tanik Sao, lying in pool of blood coming from her genital soon thereafter. (d) The injury report speaks about presence of injuries around genital. (e) During chemical examination semen was found over ”Janghiya” (f) No explanation has been offered by the appellant during course of statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. while being confronted with the incriminating material. 27. Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology of Modi in 24th Edition 2011 has perceived the injury in or about genital in case rape is committed at minor girl in particular way which has been explained as:– “In small children, the hymen is not usually ruptured, but may become red and congested along with the inflammation and bruising of the labia. If considerable violence is used, there is often laceration of the fourchette and the perineum” 28. As per evidence of doctor, PW-11, the injury found by her over genital of victim confirms the finding recorded by the Modi, as referred above. 29. In Rohtas Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, the Hon’ble Apex Court took into consideration the theme of last seen theory and explained it in following way: “Last seen together theory: 24. As per evidence of doctor, PW-11, the injury found by her over genital of victim confirms the finding recorded by the Modi, as referred above. 29. In Rohtas Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, the Hon’ble Apex Court took into consideration the theme of last seen theory and explained it in following way: “Last seen together theory: 24. In cases where the accused was last seen with the deceased victim (last seen-together theory) just before the incident, it becomes the duty of the accused to explain the circumstances under which the death of the victim occurred. (Vide: Nika Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2077 ; and Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106 ) : (1992 AIR SCW 1175). 25. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 , this Court held as under:– “Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime.” (See also: Prithipal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 10 ) : (AIR 2012 SC (Cri) 333 : 2012 AIR SCW 594) Thus, the doctrine of “last seen together” shifts the burden of proof on the accused, requiring him to explain how the incident had occurred. Failure on the part of the accused to furnish any explanation in this regard, would give rise to a very strong presumption against him. 30. In S. Govindaraju Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2013 Cr.L.J. 4710 at para-23, it has been held as:– “23. It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C., to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the Court must take note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial evidence in order to decide whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete. It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C., to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the Court must take note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial evidence in order to decide whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete. When the attention of the accused is drawn to circumstances that inculpate him in relation to the commission of the crime, and he fails to offer an appropriate explanation, or gives a false answer with respect to the same, the said act may be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstances. (Vide: Munish Mabar Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 912 : (2012 AIR SCW 5454)” 31. Thus, after having thoughtful consideration, over all the probability, as well as taking into account the evidence it is found and held that prosecution has succeeded improving its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequent thereupon, instant appeal sans merit and is dismissed. Appellant is under custody, hence directed to serve out remaining sentence.