JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant, Kailash Das S/o Lal Das, Resident of Rajpura, Police Station-Kapasan, District Chittorgarh, presently lodged in Central Jail, Chittorgarh, has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 03.02.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chittograrh in Session Case No.79/2009 by which the learned trial court convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and passed sentence for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.60,000/- with the default stipulation to further undergo two years' simple imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 17.07.2009, complainant, Shyamlal (PW.1) submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) before the S.H.O., Police Station-Kapasan, alleging therein that his sister is about six years, namely, Mst. "S" was plying near Bheruji Temple in village at about 06.00 PM, at that time, accused appellant came there and offered her sweets (Chakki and Laddu) and took her at his home and committed rape and left her. The said incident was reported by Mst. "S" to him and her mother. A specific allegation was made that due to rape committed by the accused, blood was oozing out from her vagina. 3. Upon the aforesaid information given by PW.1, Shyamlal, a formal FIR No.307/2009 (Ex.P/20) was registered at Police Station Kapasan, District Chittorgarh on 17.07.2009 for the offence under Section 376 of IPC. 4. After registration of the FIR, accused appellant was arrested on 18.07.2009 in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Shankerlal and Devilal. Upon information given by accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the place of incident was verified and identified by the accused appellant. The clothes of the victim were taken in possession for investigation vide Ex.P/3 at 10.00 PM on 17.07.2009 itself in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Shankerlal and Badrilal. The site plan (Ex.P/2) was prepared and the articles which were recovered from the place of incident, were sent to the FSL for chemical examination along with vaginal swab, Saliva Blood, Smega swab. After examination, the FSL report was communicated by the FSL on 29.07.2009 (Ex.P/24). 5. The victim Mst. "S" was medically examined by Dr. Bharat Raj of Govt. Hospital, Kapasan, and after recording statements of all the witnesses, examination of accused of accused appellant by Dr. Shantilal, Medical Officer of Govt. After examination, the FSL report was communicated by the FSL on 29.07.2009 (Ex.P/24). 5. The victim Mst. "S" was medically examined by Dr. Bharat Raj of Govt. Hospital, Kapasan, and after recording statements of all the witnesses, examination of accused of accused appellant by Dr. Shantilal, Medical Officer of Govt. Hospital, Kapasan, charge sheet was filed against the accused appellant for the offence u/s 376 of IPC in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan, from where the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh, framed charge under Section 376 of IPC against accused appellant after providing him opportunity of hearing but the appellant denied the charges and prayed for trial. In the trial, statements of 12 prosecution witnesses were recorded including author of FIR PW.1 Shyamlal, PW.2 Mst. "S", PW.3 Smt. Kamli Devi (mother of prosecutrix), PW.4 Vijay Singh, so also, the doctors who examined the prosecutrix Mst. "S" and the accused, PW.7 Dr. Shantilal. 7. After recording the evidence of prosecution, statements of the accused appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the basis of allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses. Accused appellant denied the allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses and pleaded that I am innocent. In support of his defence, statements of DW.1, namely, Madhu, were recorded by the learned trial court. 8. The learned trial court after evaluating the evidence led by the parties, heard final arguments and vide judgment dated 03.02.2010 convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and passed sentence for life imprisonment. In this appeal, the appellant is challenging the validity of the said judgment. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the whole prosecution story is totally false and concocted by the complainant, therefore, the finding given by the trial court deserve to be quashed. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the whole prosecution case is based upon statements of PW.11, Kasturi, who is in relation with family of the prosecutrix, therefore, her statements cannot be read against the appellant but this fact has not been appreciated by the trial court, therefore, the judgment impugned is liable to be quashed and set aside. 10. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that as per allegations of prosecutrix the age of the prosecutrix is six years only and the appellant committed rape with her but this fact is not proved because no injury was found upon the vital part of the appellant as well as no external injury was found upon the body of the prosecutrix. Therefore, the whole prosecution story is false. It is also submitted that other children, Beena, Baxu and Kalu etc. who were playing with the prosecutrix were not examined in the trial, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11. Lastly, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that Dr. Bharat Raj (PW.9) in his statements categorically stated that if a person forcibly commit rape with minor girl then it is possible to receive injury upon vital part of the person. But in the present case in hand, no injury was found on the vital part of the appellant, therefore, it is case in which the whole prosecution story is based upon concocted facts, therefore, this appeal may kindly be allowed and the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed. 12. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused appellant has committed heinous offence of rape with a six years' old minor girl, Mst. "S" and the factum of rape is proved by the medical evidence, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of prosecutrix PW. - (child witness) and corroborated by the author of FIR PW.1-Shyamlal, and mother of prosecutrix kamla. The learned trial court has rightly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence so as to convict the accused appellant for the offence under Section 376 of IPC vide the judgment dated 03.02.2010. Therefore, this appeal may kindly be dismissed. 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the statements of all the 12 witnesses. Admittedly, the FIR was registered upon a complaint filed by PW.1, Shyamlal. The said witness has categorically stated before the court on oath that Mst. "S" was playing near the temple of Bheruji with other children, and at that time while offering sweets, accused appellant took prosecutrix in his house and committed rape after dislodging his clothes of private parts. Admittedly, the FIR was registered upon a complaint filed by PW.1, Shyamlal. The said witness has categorically stated before the court on oath that Mst. "S" was playing near the temple of Bheruji with other children, and at that time while offering sweets, accused appellant took prosecutrix in his house and committed rape after dislodging his clothes of private parts. It was also averred that blood was oozing out from the private part of the prosecutrix, who was six years of age. 14. We have perused the statement of PW.2, Mst. "S", in which she has categorically made allegation against the appellant for committing rape with her. The witness PW.3, Smt. Kamla, mother of the prosecutrix reiterated the facts stated by PW.1, Shyamlal and PW.2 Mst. "S". Other witnesses, including PW.11, Kasturi, who categorically proved the incident. Witness PW.11, Kasturi, specifically mentioned in her statements before the court that I have seen the accused when he took Mst. "S" in his house and after one hour, when she was taken in house, the incident come out in the village. 15. Upon consideration of entire evidence of the prosecution coupled with the statements of the doctors PW.9 Dr. Bharat Raj, who examined the prosecutrix, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for commission of offence against the accused appellant. 16. We have perused the judgment, relied upon by the learned counsel or the appellant, rendered by Division Bench of this Court (At Jaipur Bench) in the case of D.B. Criminal Appeal No.162/2007-Santosh Kumar @ Johny v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 29.01.2015 In our opinion, the facts of the said case are altogether different than the facts of the present case as in the instant case a six years old girl has been subjected to rape by the appellant, which is a very serious crime. 17. In view of above discussion, it is obvious that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court has considered the entire evidence in right perspective, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for in the judgment impugned.Consequently, the present appeal filed by the accused appellant is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******