JUDGMENT V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharkawada dated 17.6.2014 in S.T. No. 11 of 2012. By the said judgment, the learned Judge of the trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for six months. The learned trial Judge also convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. Heard learned counsel (appointed) for the appellant and learned APP for the State. With their able assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. At the most, on the basis of evidence available on record, he can be found guilty for making an attempt to commit rape. 3. Prosecution case, as it was disclosed during the course of trial, is narrated herein as under: (a) The prosecutrix is a minor girl. Her date of birth is 25.8.2005 as per the Birth Certificate issued by the competent authority of Municipal Council, Pandharkawada. The said certificate is at Ex. 15. The date of offence is 30.11.2011. Thus, on the date of incident, the prosecutrix was hardly six years of her age. (b) The F.I.R. is lodged by P.W. 1 Swarnamala, who is mother of the prosecutrix The oral report is at Ex. 12. The said report was reduced into writing by Jahangir Khan Pathan (P.W. 12)-the Investigating Officer. Printed F.I.R. is at Ex. 13. (c) The oral report discloses that on the date of incident, at about 5 O' clock in the evening, the first informant had proceeded to water-tap for fetching water. That time, the prosecutrix and her younger sister were in the house. Printed F.I.R. is at Ex. 13. (c) The oral report discloses that on the date of incident, at about 5 O' clock in the evening, the first informant had proceeded to water-tap for fetching water. That time, the prosecutrix and her younger sister were in the house. After fetching water when the first informant was returning home, one boy by name Sujal Narpande, aged about 7 years, informed her that one person had taken away the prosecutrix with him and he has gone towards the river. On getting such information, Swamamala (P.W. 1) got frightened and started searching for her daughter. That time she noticed Sk. Anis Sk. Mehboob (P.W. 4) and Sudhir Juware (P.W. 11). They informed her that when they had been to the river for answering nature's call, they heard noise of weeping. Therefore, they went there and noticed one person (appellant) in a naked condition and also one girl in a naked condition and the said person was sleeping over that girl. Therefore, Sk. Anis and Sudhir tried to rescue that girl and at that time the appellant tried to attack them. Resultantly, these two persons raised alarm for the help. Other persons gathered there and they over-powered the appellant. When they asked the girl her name, she disclosed her name and also the name of her mother. At the same time, the first informant reached there in search of her daughter. All these persons thereafter went to the police station along with the appellant and lodged the report. (d) Jahangir Khan Pathan (P.W. 12), who was attached to police station Pandharkawada, arrested the appellant under arrest panchanama Ex. 23. He also seized the clothes of the victim under seizure panchanama Ex. 14 and referred her to Rural Hospital, Pandharkawada, for her medical examination along with lady police constable. On the next day, he prepared the spot panchanama (Ex. 46). The appellant was also referred for medical examination. He seized the semen sample and blood sample of accused under seizure panchanama (Ex. 24). The vaginal swab and blood sample of the victim were also seized under seizure panchanama (Ex. 25). The clothes of the appellant were also seized under seizure panchanama (Ex. 45). He also recorded the statement of victim in presence of panch witnesses Vandana Jadhav and Nidhi Khalwa (P.W. 3) and panchanama for the same was prepared vide Ex. 54. 24). The vaginal swab and blood sample of the victim were also seized under seizure panchanama (Ex. 25). The clothes of the appellant were also seized under seizure panchanama (Ex. 45). He also recorded the statement of victim in presence of panch witnesses Vandana Jadhav and Nidhi Khalwa (P.W. 3) and panchanama for the same was prepared vide Ex. 54. The map of the spot of incident was prepared by Revenue Inspector Bhayya Thamke (P.W. 6). The map of occurrence is at Ex. 27. Birth certificate of victim was also obtained by the Investigating Officer. Seized articles were sent to chemical analyzer for scientific examination and analysis. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of law. 4. The learned trial Court framed the charge against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(f) of Indian Penal Code. The appellant denied the charge and claimed for trial. 5. In order to bring home guilt of the appellant, prosecution has examined in all 12 witnesses and also relied upon various documents. The defence of the accused, as per his statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, is that since he had consumed liquor, he was not knowing anything. 6. Though 12 witnesses are examined by the prosecution, the evidence of following witnesses would be relevant for decision of the present appeal- 1. P.W.1 Swarnamala Mother of prosecutrix 2. P.W.2 Prosecutrix Victim herself 3. P.W.4 Sk. Anis Eyewitness 4. P.W.9 Dr. Madhuri Patil Examined the victim 5. P.W.10 Dr. Pramod Deosarkar Examined the accused 6. P.W.11 Sidhir Juware Eye witness 7. P.W.12 Jahangir Khan Pathan Investigating Officer 7. P.W. 1 is mother of the prosecutrix. Her evidence would show that on the date of incident she was required to step outside her house for fetching water from the water-tap. The F.I.R. recites that when she was on way to her house after fetching water, one boy aged about 7 years informed her that the prosecutrix was taken away by one unknown person. That shows that the water-tap must have been located away from the house of the prosecutrix as well as the first informant. 8. Through Ex. 15 - the birth certificate it is conclusively proved that on the date of the incident the prosecutrix was hardly six years of age. That shows that the water-tap must have been located away from the house of the prosecutrix as well as the first informant. 8. Through Ex. 15 - the birth certificate it is conclusively proved that on the date of the incident the prosecutrix was hardly six years of age. As per the evidence of P.W. 1 Swarnamala, her two daughters, namely the prosecutrix and younger one, were only in the house. There is no need for corroboration to the statement of the first informant that she started search for her daughter since it would be the most natural reaction of a concerned mother when it is brought to her notice that her kid is being taken away by unknown person. Her search for her daughter is also corroborated by independent witnesses P.W. 4 Sk. Anis and P.W. 11 Sudhir, who met her on the way along with the prosecutrix. 9. From the evidence of P.W. 1 Swarnamala it is explicitly clear about the condition of her daughter. In answer to a Court question about her condition, she disclosed that at that time the prosecutrix was weeping and shivering. The little girl was lifted by the appellant, who was unknown to the family of the prosecutrix. She was taken away from her house and physical atrocity was committed on her. Therefore, the shivering which was noticed by the mother of the prosecutrix at the relevant time, in my view, fully corroborates the prosecution case against the appellant. 10. P.W. 4 Sk. Anis and P.W. 11 Sudhir are eye witnesses to the heinous crime committed by the appellant. May be incidentally, however they were near the river to answer nature's call. In the rural area of this country, most of the house sans toilets requiring the inhabitants to go away from their respective houses to answer nature's call. The evidence of these two independent witnesses is free from exaggeration. There is no reason for these two witnesses to depose against the appellant. Their evidence disclose that upon hearing the scream their attention was drawn towards that side. Therefore, they went near the place and noticed that the appellant was naked, the girl was not having nicker and he was doing illicit work of physical relations with the girl. 11. The prosecutrix is also examined. Their evidence disclose that upon hearing the scream their attention was drawn towards that side. Therefore, they went near the place and noticed that the appellant was naked, the girl was not having nicker and he was doing illicit work of physical relations with the girl. 11. The prosecutrix is also examined. She has also vividly stated from the witness-box about the happening that occurred to her on the date of the incident. The girl has identified the appellant in the Court. Though identification done by the prosecutrix is questioned through her cross-examination, this Court is not ready to disbelieve the prosecution case only on that count since the appellant was apprehended on the spot itself by two prosecution witnesses, namely Sk. Anis and Sudhir and he was brought to the police station. 12. Dr. Madhuri Patil (P.W. 9), who examined the prosecutrix, deposed that the prosecutrix was frightened when she examined her. The medical officer also found that hymen of prosecutrix was torn and the libia minora was swollen. Therefore, it is crystal clear that there was a penetration in her private part. 13. Further, the clothes of the accused which were seized at the time of his arrest were properly sealed and sent to chemical analyzer for examination. The report of chemical analyzer, which is at Ex. 61, shows that the full pant of the appellant was having semen stains. When the appellant was asked about the same, he was unable to offer any explanation. Therefore, existence of semen stains on his clothes is a corroborative piece of evidence regarding the truthfulness of prosecution case. On re-appreciation of entire evidence available on record, this Court is of the view that the prosecutrix was subjected to rape at the hands of the appellant. Therefore, no interference is called for in the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Judge of the trial Court. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. Appeal stands dismissed. The counsel for appellant is entitled for Rs. 5000/- from the Legal Aid Committee towards his legal professional charges.