JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Appellant-convict Ram Singh, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has assailed the judgment dated 28.3.2013/30.3.2013, passed by Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No.19 of 2012, titled as State of H.P. v. Ram Singh, whereby he stands convicted for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 376 & 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under: Section Imprisonment 376 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac), and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 354 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently, and half of the amount of fine, after realization, has been ordered to be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation. 2. It is the case of prosecution that accused was posted as Physical Education Teacher (PET) at Government Middle School, Dahanu, where prosecutrix (PW-2) was studying in Class-8. On 1.12.2010, accused applied for half day leave and also made the prosecutrix apply for half day leave and also after making the prosecutrix do so, took her in his car towards an isolated place. After taking her into the jungle, he sexually assaulted her. Thereafter, he threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone, lest she be defamed. However, after reaching home, prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother, who, in turn, informed her husband. Eventually, the matter was reported to the police, vide complaint (Ex. PW- 2/B), on the basis of which FIR No.377, dated 2.12.2010 (Ex.PW-9/A), for commission of offences, under the provisions of Section 376/354 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station, Balh, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Inspector Bahadur Singh (PW-9), who conducted the investigation, got the prosecutrix medically examined from Dr. Richa (PW-1), who issued MLC (Ex.PW-1/B). As per the doctor, possibility of sexual assault could not be ruled out. To establish the age of the prosecutrix, Investigating Officer took on record Birth Certificates (Ex.PW-3/C & 6/A), disclosing her date of birth to be 26.8.1998. Inspector Bahadur Singh (PW-9), who conducted the investigation, got the prosecutrix medically examined from Dr. Richa (PW-1), who issued MLC (Ex.PW-1/B). As per the doctor, possibility of sexual assault could not be ruled out. To establish the age of the prosecutrix, Investigating Officer took on record Birth Certificates (Ex.PW-3/C & 6/A), disclosing her date of birth to be 26.8.1998. With the completion of investigation, which, prima facie, revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 354 & 376 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and statement of the accused, under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was also recorded, in which he took the following defence: “I am innocent. When I was posted in Government Middle School Dahanu, Devinder Kumar, who has been cited by the Police as witness was supplying the building material to G.M.S. Dahanu. Since the father of the prosecutrix and Devinder Kumar were working together and I objected the inferior quantity of the building material supplied in the School, they nourished a grudge against me and due to the said grudge they have falsely implicated me in this case.” Accused also examined one witness in his defence. 5. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court convicted the accused of the charged offences and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal by the accused. 6. We have heard Mr. Anoop Chitkara, learned counsel for the accused, as also Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocates General, and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, on behalf of the State. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. Having done so, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 7. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 7. Following facts stand admitted by the accused. That in the month of December, 2012, he was posted as a Physical Education Teacher in Government Middle School, Dahanu; on 1.12.2010, he obtained casual leave for half day; and in very same school, prosecutrix was studying in Class-8. 8. That prosecutrix was born on 26.8.1998 stands proved on record by Shri Joginder Pal (PW-6), Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Sidhyani, who proved Birth Certificate (Ex.PW-6/A), and Shri Prem Singh, Head Master, Government Middle School, Anupali, who proved certificate (Ex.PW-3/C). As on the date of commission of offence, prosecutrix was below 16 years of age. 9. Dr. Richa (PW-1), who examined the prosecutrix on 2.12.2010, on oral examination, found slight swelling and redness over labia majora. Though the hymen was intact, but injuries of hymen at 1 O’clock and 11 O’clock position were found. As per the doctor, such injuries could be caused either by forceful fiddling of fingers or attempts of “penile penetration into genitalia”. Evidently, to the doctor, prosecutrix had disclosed that the accused had put his hand inside her Salwar and fiddled at her pubic area. 10. Also, it is a settled principle of law that absence of injuries on the external or internal parts of the victim by itself cannot be a reason to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix. (See: Mukesh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2014) 10 SC 327); State of Haryana v. Basti Ram, (2013) 4 SCC 200 ; O.M. Baby (Dead) by Legal Representative v. State of Keral, (2012) 11 SCC 362 ; and State of U.P. v. Chhotey Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 550 ). 11. The Apex Court in Puran Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2014) 5 SCC 689 , observed that even non-rupture of hymen itself would be of no consequence and rape could be held to be proved even if there is slight penetration. 12. Mere fact that hymen is intact or that there is no actual wound on the private part of the prosecutrix is not conclusive of the fact that prosecutrix was not subjected to rape. 12. Mere fact that hymen is intact or that there is no actual wound on the private part of the prosecutrix is not conclusive of the fact that prosecutrix was not subjected to rape. (Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 11 SCC 688 ). 13. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness; a high degree of probability having been shown to exist in view of the subject matter being a criminal charge. However, if the Court on facts may find it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice would do. 14. Reiterating its earlier view in Mohd. Iqbal v. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 14 SCC 481 ; Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delh), (2012) 7 SCC 171 , the Apex Court in Mukesh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2014) 10 SC 327, has held that sole testimony of prosecutrix is sufficient to establish commission of rape, even in the absence of any corroborative evidence. 15. In Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 11 SCC 688 , the apex Court held as under: “33. It will be useful to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of O.M. Baby v. State of Kerala, (2012) 11 SCC 362 , where the Court held as follows:- "17. ….. ‘16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. 18. We would further like to observe that while appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix, the court must keep in mind that in the context of the values prevailing in the country, particularly in rural India, it would be unusual for a woman to come up with a false story of being a victim of sexual assault so as to implicate an innocent person. Such a view has been expressed by the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 and has found reiteration in a recent judgment in Rajinder @ Raju v. State of H.P., (2009) 16 SCC 69 , para 19 whereof may be usefully extracted: ‘19. Such a view has been expressed by the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 and has found reiteration in a recent judgment in Rajinder @ Raju v. State of H.P., (2009) 16 SCC 69 , para 19 whereof may be usefully extracted: ‘19. In the context of Indian culture, a woman - victim of sexual aggression - would rather suffer silently than to falsely implicate somebody. Any statement of rape is an extremely humiliating experience for a woman and until she is a victim of sex crime, she would not blame anyone but the real culprit. While appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix, the courts must always keep in mind that no self-respecting woman would put her honour at stake by falsely alleging commission of rape on her and therefore, ordinarily a look for corroboration of her testimony is unnecessary and uncalled for. But for high improbability in the prosecution case, the conviction in the case of sex crime may be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. It has been rightly said that corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape nor the absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim can be construed as evidence of consent.’ " 16. In Shyam Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 7 SCC 77 , the Apex Court held as under: “27. Respect for reputation of women in the society shows the basic civility of a civilised society. No member of society can afford to conceive the idea that he can create a hollow in the honour of a woman. Such thinking is not only lamentable but also deplorable. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the thought of sullying the physical frame of a woman is the demolition of the accepted civilized norm, i.e., “physical morality”. In such a sphere, impetuosity has no room. The youthful excitement has no place. It should be paramount in everyone's mind that, on one hand, the society as a whole cannot preach from the pulpit about social, economic and political equality of the sexes and, on the other, some pervert members of the same society dehumanize the woman by attacking her body and ruining her chastity. The youthful excitement has no place. It should be paramount in everyone's mind that, on one hand, the society as a whole cannot preach from the pulpit about social, economic and political equality of the sexes and, on the other, some pervert members of the same society dehumanize the woman by attacking her body and ruining her chastity. It is an assault on the individuality and inherent dignity of a woman with the mindset that she should be elegantly servile to men. Rape is a monstrous burial of her dignity in the darkness. It is a crime against the holy body of a woman and the soul of the society and such a crime is aggravated by the manner in which it has been committed. We have emphasised on the manner because, in the present case, the victim is an eight year old girl who possibly would be deprived of the dreams of “Spring of Life” and might be psychologically compelled to remain in the “Torment of Winter”. When she suffers, the collective at large also suffers. Such a singular crime creates an atmosphere of fear which is historically abhorred by the society. It demands just punishment from the court and to such a demand, the courts of law are bound to respond within legal parameters. It is a demand for justice and the award of punishment has to be in consonance with the legislative command and the discretion vested in the court.” 17. In Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 7 SCC 171 , the apex Court has cautioned the Court to adopt the following approach: “The courts while trying an accused on the charge of rape, must deal with the case with utmost sensitivity, examining the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses which are not of a substantial character.” 18. The Apex Court in Munna v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 10 SCC 254, has reiterated the principle that testimony of prosecutrix is almost at par with an immediate witness and can be acted upon without corroboration. 19. In Court, prosecutrix has categorically deposed that on 1.12.2010, during recess, accused called her and asked her to proceed on leave for the remaining day. On his asking, she wrote application (Ex. 19. In Court, prosecutrix has categorically deposed that on 1.12.2010, during recess, accused called her and asked her to proceed on leave for the remaining day. On his asking, she wrote application (Ex. PW-2/A) and was told by the accused that her leave stood sanctioned. He then directed her to meet him near the Ration Depot, where she went and waited for some time. Accused came in his car and took her towards Sidhyani. After covering a distance of 400 metres, he stopped the car near Hawanu jungle. She was made to alight and the accused parked the car at some distance. Thereafter, he took her into the jungle and at a secluded place, started assaulting her sexually. First, he pressed her breasts and then after opening the string of her Salwar and removing his trousers, committed wrong act. She clarifies the “wrong act” to be rape. She states that she felt pain on her private parts. After about five minutes, accused dropped her at a nearby curve. He threatened her not to disclose the incident, lest she be defamed. On reaching home, when her mother enquired the reason for not attending the school for whole day, she disclosed the incident. At about 6 p.m., when her father came, the incident was also disclosed to him. Complaint (Ex.PW-2/B) was lodged with the police and she was got medically examined. 20. The witness, in our considered view, has withstood the test of severe cross-examination. The school in question was small with just about 50 students. None noticed her write the leave application, which was handed over to the accused. Accused was her teacher and could prevail upon her. She clarifies that even though there is a cowshed of Ganga Ram and tea-stall near the Ration Depot, however, none could see them at the place where the crime stood committed. She states that there was a stone cave like structure. She further clarifies that accused put his private part into her private part only for 1-2 minutes and no blood oozed out at that point in time. She denies having lodged a false complaint, on the asking of contractor Devinder Kumar. She is not even aware of any such dispute between Ram Singh (accused) and Devinder Kumar, with whom her father is employed. 21. Mr. She denies having lodged a false complaint, on the asking of contractor Devinder Kumar. She is not even aware of any such dispute between Ram Singh (accused) and Devinder Kumar, with whom her father is employed. 21. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, while drawing the attention of the Court to the statement of the doctor, points out that version of the prosecutrix, with regard to the act of rape, is false and stands belied and contradicted on record. In court, prosecutrix states that accused kept his private part over her private part, whereas according to the doctor she disclosed that accused had put his finger in her private part. With this, we do not find the credit of the witness to have been impeached or her version to be unbelievable and uninspiring in confidence. Prosecutrix was confronted with the version, she narrated to the doctor. Also, doctor observed injury on her private parts. In Court, version of the prosecutrix cannot be said to be an afterthought or exaggeration, for such fact does find recorded in the FIR, which was so done prior to the examination of the prosecutrix by the doctor. It is nobody’s case that police prepared false documents. 22. Defence taken by the accused, to say the least, is preposterous, if not false. He wants the Court to believe that purely on account of his animosity with his partner, father of the prosecutrix got a false complaint filed through his daughter. There is nothing on record to establish that father of the prosecutrix was under any obligation, influence or control of Devinder Kumar, who also has not been examined in Court to establish the factum of hostility. For that matter, none else was examined, save and except Girdhari Lal (DW-1), who only states that in the month of November, 2010, heated arguments took place between the accused and Devinder Kumar, on account of supply of inferior quality of material. But then, this witness does not state that Devinder Kumar had extended any threats of getting him falsely implicated in a case. No father would put honour of his minor daughter at stake, and that too, without any reason, on the asking of his employer. It would be a rare coincidence when both the prosecutrix and the accused would be on leave at the same point in time. 23. No father would put honour of his minor daughter at stake, and that too, without any reason, on the asking of his employer. It would be a rare coincidence when both the prosecutrix and the accused would be on leave at the same point in time. 23. From the material placed on record, it stands established by the prosecution witnesses that the accused is guilty of having committed the offence charged for. There is sufficient, convincing, cogent and reliable evidence on record to this effect. The circumstances stand conclusively proved by unbroken chain of unimpeachable testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The guilt of the accused stands proved beyond reasonable doubt to the hilt. The chain of events stand conclusively established and lead only to one conclusion, i.e. guilt of the accused. Circumstances when cumulatively considered fully establish completion of chain of events, indicating the guilt of the accused and no other hypothesis other than the same. It cannot be said that accused is innocent or not guilty or that he has been falsely implicated or that his defence is probable or that the evidence led by the prosecution is inconsistent, unreliable, untrustworthy and unbelievable. It cannot be said that the version narrated by the witnesses in Court is in a parrot-like manner and hence is to be disbelieved. 24. Thus, in our considered view, prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence that he assaulted the prosecutrix, with intent to outrage her modesty and also committed rape on her. 25. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. There is no illegality, irregularity, perversity in correct and/or in complete appreciation of the material so placed on record by the parties. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.