JUDGMENT S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vipul Sundesha for Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 2. The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 22.5.2009 in Sessions Case No. 232 of 2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge of Fast Track Court, Dahod, whereby, he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506(2) of the IPC and awarded following sentence. Sr. No. Conviction u/S of I.P.C. Sentence awarded R.I. Fine imposed (in Rs.) In default of payment of fine (R.I.) 1. 376 10 years 6,000/- 6 months 2. 506 (2) 6 years 1,000/- 2 months Till date, he has undergone almost 7 years of imprisonment and at present he is in jail. 3. The case of the prosecution is to the effect that on 16.9.2008, when victim was grazing her cattle near her village, the appellant has caught her from back side and though she has tried to oppose, the appellant has committed an offence of rape by forcible physical intercourse. Thereupon, victim who is 17 years young girl and cousin brother of the appellant has filed a complaint before the Dahod police station, which is registered as Ist C.R. No. 232 of 2008 on 17.9.2008 and after investigation and trial, the appellant was found guilty and he was convicted as stated above. 4. The incident has taken place at about 4.00 pm and it is undisputed fact that age of the victim was between 17 and 19 years only. 5. In the above background, if we peruse the material evidence on record, which is in the form of deposition of 5 witnesses and 7 documentary evidence only, it becomes clear that there is positive evidence both, by the victim - her parents and it is having corroboration in the form of FSL report to confirm that victim has been subjected to physical intercourse at the relevant time. Therefore, unless appellant is able to prove his innocence if not by reliable and cogent evidence then, at-least by preponderance of probability, it would be difficult for him to get rid off conviction. Therefore, unless appellant is able to prove his innocence if not by reliable and cogent evidence then, at-least by preponderance of probability, it would be difficult for him to get rid off conviction. To that extent, if we examine Further Statement under Section 313 by the accused before the trial Court, it is his say that since victim was habituated to have physical relationship with other shepherds and when he has told her to restrain from indulging in such activity, victim has become annoyed and filed a false complaint against him. However, there is no evidence; even prima-facie evidence to support such defence and, therefore, only because accused says so, it would be difficult to discard other evidence which otherwise confirms that victim has been subjected to the offence of rape by the appellant. 6. PW-1 at Exh. 6 is Doctor, who has examined the victim on 18.9.2008, wherein, he has categorically stated that when he has examined the victim, the victim has said that when she was grazing her cattle, the appellant has forcefully committed intercourse with her in ravine/gorge of Uchvaniya village. Doctor has thereupon, examined her physical parts and collected samples from her body and proves injury certificate at Exh. 8. In cross examination, he opined that if there is an offence of rape in any such area, then victim would have received such injuries but then he confirmed that he may not be in a position to confirm that whether injuries are must in such case or not. Whereas, so far as age of the victim is concerned, he has no option but to admit that the victim is aged between 17 and 19 years and that he has recorded the history as narrated by the victim that she had been raped. Therefore, though this Doctor has tried to remain neutral, the fact remains that there is positive evidence regarding disclosure of rape by the victim before the Doctor and thereafter, if FSL report is confirming the possibility of rape then there is no reason to disbelieve the victim. Doctor has also examined the appellant on next day and proves his certificate at Exh. 9, wherein, it is stated that he is capable of sexual intercourse. 7. PW-2 at Exh. 12 is panch witness regarding recovery Panchnama of clothes recovered from the victim. Doctor has also examined the appellant on next day and proves his certificate at Exh. 9, wherein, it is stated that he is capable of sexual intercourse. 7. PW-2 at Exh. 12 is panch witness regarding recovery Panchnama of clothes recovered from the victim. He supports the case of prosecution regarding collection of victim's clothes and proves the Panchnama at Exh. 14, which is drawn on 18th September, 2008. He also proves the Panchnama of the place of incident at Exh. 13. He also admits that 2nd Panch Arjunsinh was present with him and they both have signed the Panchnama after completing its activity as narrated in Panchnama. 8. PW-3 at Exh. 16 is the victim - 17 years old girl. In her short deposition she has in categorical terms stated that accused is his cousin brother but when she was grazing her cattle accused has caught her from behind and she explained that how rape was committed upon her. All these details are avoided to be reproduced. However, there is categorical evidence that she has been threatened to kill and slapped. She has identified and proved her complaint at Exh. 17. She identifies the victim also but when he is her cousin brother, there is no issue regarding identification. During cross examination, an attempt was made to prove that she had relation with other shepherds when she used to graze her cattle but victim has denied such suggestions. There was one another contention put forward by the appellant that there was a dispute amongst the family members and, therefore, such false complaint is filed. However, victim has denied such suggestion also. Apart from such denial, rest of the cross examination, on the contrary, confirms that incident has taken place as narrated by the victim. 9. If we peruse the complaint at Exh. 17, it also discloses the entire incident in nut-shell and appellant could not rebut such evidence during cross examination of the witnesses. 10. PW-4 at Exh. 18 is mother of the victim namely; Khatudiben. She has simply conveyed that how victim has come home and conveyed her about the incident and that she was crying at that time. During cross examination, an attempt was made to prove that victim was habituated to have sexual relationship with different boys and that since their uncle Amrubhai has witnessed her, such false complaint is filed. She has simply conveyed that how victim has come home and conveyed her about the incident and that she was crying at that time. During cross examination, an attempt was made to prove that victim was habituated to have sexual relationship with different boys and that since their uncle Amrubhai has witnessed her, such false complaint is filed. Irrespective of right of defence, one has to note that in such cases, it becomes very common that most of the accused are blaming the victim with such allegation that too without any substantial evidence on hand. This fact itself goes against them when they are unable to prove such allegation. It is difficult to believe that only because of such reason, any young girl would file false complaint against her own cousin brother and, moreover, even family members support the same. If at all there is substance in any such allegation, then accused has to call upon such witness. In the present case, uncle namely; Amrubhai or any other possible witness to prove the character of the victim but mere suggestion or allegation is not sufficient. 11. PW-5 at Exh. 67 is father of the victim, who was not present at the relevant time, but when he came to know about the incident, he accompanied the complainant to lodge a complaint, he was not cross examined to prove any other allegation against the victim probably because of the reason that appellant dare not to ask the father of the victim that his daughter is of loose character. In any case, there is nothing in such evidence which rebuts the prosecution case or prove innocence of the appellant. 12. PW-6 at Exh. 20 is PSI Mr. K.V. Zala, who has investigated the offence and filed a chargesheet. He proves the FSL report at Exh. 20 and in minimum words narrated the facts of complaint and investigation. He was cross examined at length. Now, appellant has come forward with one another defence that one advocate Mr. Karsan is known to the family of the victim and, therefore, IO has lodged the FIR on the say and advice of said advocate namely; Mr. Karsan. It is also alleged that panch witness Sardarbhai being PW-1 is brother of said advocate Mr. Karsanbhai and, therefore, since they all are family members, they got up the story against the appellant. Karsan is known to the family of the victim and, therefore, IO has lodged the FIR on the say and advice of said advocate namely; Mr. Karsan. It is also alleged that panch witness Sardarbhai being PW-1 is brother of said advocate Mr. Karsanbhai and, therefore, since they all are family members, they got up the story against the appellant. He denied all the suggestions regarding registration of false case or interference by any third person either for registering FIR or during investigation and for filing chargesheet. Even if there is some such story of lodging of false complaint against the appellant as recorded hereinabove, appellant has failed to bring such fact on record even by prima-facie disclosure or evidence and, therefore, only because some reasons are tried to be proved during cross examination of IO, it does not get colour of an evidence so as to acquit the appellant. 13. The FSL report at Exh. 21 confirms the presence of man sperms in vaginal swab of the victim. Therefore, when victim is a minor unmarried girl, presence of vaginal swab on her clothes and body certainly supports the prosecution story regarding commission of offence upon the victim. Therefore, when there is no evidence in rebuttal of prosecution evidence and when there is no prima-facie evidence to prove existence of any reason for filing false complaint, there is no reason to deviate from the decision rendered by the trial Court in impugned judgment which is well discussed after considering entire evidence on record. 14. Appellant is relying upon following decisions; "[A] Criminal Appeal No. 2238 of 2010 between Md. Ali @ Guddu v. State of U.P. decided on 10.3.2015, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has acquitted the appellant because of several reasons one of which is delay in lodging the FIR as there was 11 days delay, the Apex Court has held that on factual merits as appreciated before confirming conviction when no report of examining the victim was filed for 11 days, the Court did not believe the prosecution case. However, in absence of same situation before us, such judgment would not help the appellant to get rid off conviction. However, in absence of same situation before us, such judgment would not help the appellant to get rid off conviction. [B] 2013 (3) SCC 791 between Rajesh Patel v. State of Jharkhand, wherein, benefit of doubt was extended to the appellant for delayed FIR and when evidence is to the effect that in-fact victim had been to the house of the appellant since they both were staying together. Therefore, because of such judgment, it cannot be said that in all cases of Section 376, conviction cannot be confirmed." 15. Whereas, learned APP is relying upon the following decisions; "[A] 2010(8) SCC 191 between Vijay @ Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein, while dealing with all different aspects of such cases, while dismissing the appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, Court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if her deposition is found to be worthy of credence and reliable and thereupon it does not require corroboration. [B] 2013(11) SCC 688 between Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein, conviction was confirmed even in absence of injuries and it has been reconfirmed that the statements of a witness must be read in its entirety and reading a line out of context is not an accepted canon of appreciation of evidence. One should examine the cumulative effect of the complete evidence and case of the prosecution in its entirety." 16. I have also perused the impugned judgment. I do not find any illegality, irregularity, perverseness or arbitrariness in the impugned judgment. The trial Court has discussed all the evidence and extended reasons for conviction. The appreciation of evidence does not given any impression other than such decision. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with such decision. 17. In view of above facts and circumstances, there is no substance in the appeal and hence the same deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, appeal is dismissed. 18. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court.