JUDGMENT : P.N. Deshmukh, J. This appeal takes exception to judgment and order dated 22nd of June, 2015, passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Special Criminal (Children) Case No.29 of 2014, by which the appellant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/, in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Appellant is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(i) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years on each count and also to pay fine of Rs.1000/- on each count, in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months on each count. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. It appears to be the case of prosecution that on 17th of July, 2014, at about 2.00 p.m., when prosecutrix was alone in her house, appellant visited her and made enquiry about presence of her family members. On reply of prosecutrix that she is alone, appellant entered the house and by closing the door from inside, committed forcible sexual intercourse upon her and ran away. On the basis of report lodged by prosecutrix vide Exh.16, offence came to be registered vide Crime No.261 of 2014 at Police Station Bhandara for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(i)(h), 452 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, which was investigated by PW 10 Pranita Karhade, PSI, attached to Bhandara Police Station. 3. During the course of the investigation, accused came to be arrested on the day of incident. PW 10 Pranita Karhade referred prosecutrix for medical examination which was conducted by PW 8 Dr. Chanchal Khobragade and has issued medical certificate, Exh.34. 3. During the course of the investigation, accused came to be arrested on the day of incident. PW 10 Pranita Karhade referred prosecutrix for medical examination which was conducted by PW 8 Dr. Chanchal Khobragade and has issued medical certificate, Exh.34. Investigating Officer visited the spot of incident and drawn spot panchanama vide Exh.24 and seized clothes of prosecutrix being Articles A/1 to A/4 under seizure panchanama, Exh.39. She also collected vaginal swab, pubic hairs, blood sample and nail clippings of prosecutrix under requisition to Medical Officer and seized the same under seizure panchanama, Exh.40. On arrest of appellant he was referred for his medical examination and his blood sample, semen sample, nail clippings etc. were seized under seizure panchanama, Exh.42. During the course of interrogation, on the basis of disclosure statement made by appellant vide Exh.43, his clothes came to be seized as produced by him under seizure panchanama, Exh.44 which were concealed in a dilapidated house. On recording statements of material witnesses and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed before the learned Magistrate, First Class, Bhandara. 4. In the course of time, the case came to be committed for trial before the learned Sessions Court. Charge was framed against the accused vide Exh.3 for the offence punishable under Sections 450, 376(i) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4, 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is that of total denial and of false implication. 5. To establish the Charge levelled against the appellant, the prosecution has examined in all ten witnesses and commenced its evidence by examining PW 1 Yashoda Bawanthade, mother of prosecutrix, to whom prosecutrix has made disclosure of incident, PW 2 , the prosecutrix, PW 3 Mrinal Girish Muneshwar, Councilor, in whose presence statement of prosecutrix was recorded, PW 4 Bisan Bawanthade, father of prosecutrix, PW 5 Poonam Mane, a panch on spot panchanama, who has partly supported the case of prosecution since has not supported with regards to seizure of clothes of prosecutrix in her presence, PW 6 Chakradhar Bhujade who did not support the case of prosecution on the ground of memorandum statement of accused and subsequent seizure, PW 7 Gajanan Bapurao Gite, Carrier, PW 8 Dr. Chanchal who has medically examined the prosecutrix and issued certificate, Exh.34, PW 9 Malti Mane who did not support the case of prosecution and concluded its evidence on examining PW 10 Ku. Pranita Karhade, Investigating Officer. 6. The learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge on considering the evidence of above witnesses and documents placed on record has found appellant guilty of offence punishable under Sections 450, 376(i) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and awarded sentence to appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has stressfully submitted that prosecution has failed to establish age of prosecutrix to be minor under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act as her birth certificate filed on record is not proved. It is further contended that there is no corroboration to the evidence of prosecutrix though, according to her, immediately after the incident, she has disclosed about it to PW 9 Malti who, however, has not corroborated evidence of prosecutrix. 9. It is further contended that though Chemical Analyzer's report established that blood stains found on clothes of prosecutrix as well as that of appellant were of blood group of prosecutrix, that by itself is not sufficient to establish the involvement of appellant in this Crime for want of substantive evidence. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has submitted that nothing is brought on record to doubt evidence of prosecutrix and there is no reason for her to falsely implicate the appellant. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, oral testimony of prosecutrix is fully supported by medical evidence and Chemical Analyzer's report as well as evidence of PW 1, her mother, who immediately on having knowledge of incident from prosecutrix lodged report and put the investigation into motion. It is, therefore, contended that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have scrutinized the evidence and documents on record. 12. PW 2, prosecutrix has stated that incident took place on 17th of July, 2014, at about 2.00 p.m., when she was alone in the house. It is, therefore, contended that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have scrutinized the evidence and documents on record. 12. PW 2, prosecutrix has stated that incident took place on 17th of July, 2014, at about 2.00 p.m., when she was alone in the house. At that time, accused came to her house and enquired whether her father was inside, to which she replied in negative, upon which he asked her to open the door as he had some work. Prosecutrix accordingly opened the door upon which appellant entered the house and closed the door from inside. She further stated that accused then gagged her mouth and dragged her into the kitchen and on removing her clothes committed forcible sexual intercourse. She has further stated that in the meantime, PW 9 Malti arrived in her house and gave call to her due to which accused ran away from the back side door. 13. It has further come in her evidence that she narrated said incident to her mother who accompanied her to Police Station and lodged her report, Exh.16 on the strength of which offence came to be registered vide Exh.17. As per further evidence of prosecutrix, she was then referred for her medical examination and during the course of investigation police drew spot panchanama in respect of spot pointed out by her and seized her clothes consisting of underwear, legging, Salvar and slip under seizure panchanama. As per her report, her date of birth is 13th of March, 1998 and that she was indoor patient in the hospital for three days. 14. In the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited from the evidence of prosecutrix to discard her evidence. It is material to note that even there is no suggestion put to prosecutrix that she was not sexually assaulted by accused. In that view of the matter, entire evidence of prosecutrix on the point of incident goes unchallenged. Though two omissions are brought on record in her evidence, they are, with reference to prosecutrix to have not stated in her report that accused asked if her father was in the house and with regard to accused dragging her to kitchen, however, both these omissions appear to be minor as they do not go to the root of the case. It is further material to note that even there is no challenge to date of birth as stated by prosecutrix as 13th of March, 1998, according to which, prosecutrix on the date of incident which took place on 17th of July, 2014 was minor. 15. In view of facts as aforesaid, though it is argued on behalf of the appellant that birth certificate of prosecutrix is not proved though it is filed with the charge sheet, there appears no substance in said submission in view of defence having no challenge to date of birth of prosecutrix, as deposed by her. 16. Evidence of prosecutrix finds corroboration from evidence of PW 1 Yashoda, her mother, on material aspects. She has stated that incident took place on 17th of July, 2014 when prosecutrix was alone in the house and on her reaching back to home at 6.00 p.m., prosecutrix had informed her while weeping that when she was alone in the home, at 2.00 p.m., accused arrived and asked her to open the door, which she opened, upon which he entered the house and committed sexual assault on her. PW 1 Yashoda further stated that she thus accompanied prosecutrix to police station when report came to be lodged and that her daughter was then referred for medical examination. 17. Even in the cross-examination of PW 1 Yeshoda nothing is brought on record so as to doubt her evidence. Said witness has specifically denied that prosecutrix did not disclose her any facts involving appellant about his arriving in their house and committing rape on her. No case is put forth on behalf of appellant with regards to his false implication. In that view of the matter, there is no reason for the prosecutrix or her mother to falsely involve the appellant. Even otherwise, oral version of prosecutrix is found to have materially corroborated with her report, Exh. 16. 18. Evidence of prosecutrix and her mother, when considered, coupled with medical evidence in the form of evidence of PW 8 Dr. In that view of the matter, there is no reason for the prosecutrix or her mother to falsely involve the appellant. Even otherwise, oral version of prosecutrix is found to have materially corroborated with her report, Exh. 16. 18. Evidence of prosecutrix and her mother, when considered, coupled with medical evidence in the form of evidence of PW 8 Dr. Chanchal Khobragade, the case of prosecution is further substantiated as said witness deposed that on 18th of July, 2014, i.e. one day after incident dated 17th of July, 2014, she had examined prosecutrix who had given history of single sexual contact one day before at about 2.00 to 2.30 p.m. On examination, Medical Officer has noted that the gait of victim was painful and she had sustained abrasions on both sides of labia majora and labia minora and there was also perennial tear of one degree. Hymen too was found having injuries and was ruptured. From above stated findings it was confirmed that prosecutrix was subjected to the sexual intercourse. She has accordingly proved medical Certificate, Exh.34. In the cross-examination Medical Officer has specifically denied that bleeding in the hymen was not due to rupture of hymen and that the injuries found sustained in hymen were old. It is also denied that the injuries sustained by the prosecutrix were possible by forceful fingering or by accidentally falling on the sharp object. 19. Above stated evidence, thus do not leave any doubt to hold that prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse which, from the evidence of prosecutrix and her mother, can only be said to have committed by accused. 20. Above stated evidence is further found corroborated when from the evidence of PW 10 Pranita, PSI, Investigating Officer, when she deposed that during the course of investigation she had seized clothes of prosecutrix and had also seized vaginal swab, pubic hairs, blood sample, nail clippings under seizure panchanama, Exh.40. She has further deposed that after arrest of accused, he was referred for his medical examination and had also seized his blood sample, nail clippings under seizure panchanama, Exh.42. It has further come in her evidence that she had sent all the seized muddemal articles to Chemical Analyzer for its analysis under covering letter, Exh.45 and had placed on record C.A. reports at Exhs.46 to 48. 21. It has further come in her evidence that she had sent all the seized muddemal articles to Chemical Analyzer for its analysis under covering letter, Exh.45 and had placed on record C.A. reports at Exhs.46 to 48. 21. In the background of oral testimony of Investigating Officer, as aforesaid, perusal of Exh.45 establish facts of sending clothes as well as blood sample, nail clippings of prosecutrix as well as of accused for its analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory, while from the Chemical Analyzer's Report, Exh.47 blood group of prosecutrix is certified to be of group 'B'. However, vide C.A. report, Exh.48, no group of blood of accused could be determined, as results are inconclusive. It is material to point out that as per C.A. report, Exh.46, Kurta, legging, sleeves and underwear of prosecutrix are marked as articles A/1 to A/4 and vide said report, except for slip, at Sr.no.3, all clothes of prosecutrix are stated to be stained with blood of group 'B'. 22. It is further material to note that half pant as well baniyan of accused are also stated to have stained with blood of group 'B'. No explanation is put forth on behalf of the accused as to under what circumstances his half pant as well as baniyan is found to have stained with blood of group 'B' which blood group is of prosecutrix. Above stated evidence, thus further substantiates the oral version of prosecutrix of her being ravished by appellant on the date of incident, as there is no other reason for prosecutrix to sustain bleeding from her private part, and PW 8 Dr. Chanchal had specifically denied that on 18th of July, 2014 at 6.50 a.m. when she examined prosecutrix, she noted that prosecutrix was undergoing her menses period. In view of specific denial of Medical Officer, as aforesaid, there is nothing to disbelieve the case of prosecution of accused on 17th of July, 2014 taking advantage of minor girl having been alone in her house, at 2 p.m. forcibly committed sexual assault upon her. 23. In view of specific denial of Medical Officer, as aforesaid, there is nothing to disbelieve the case of prosecution of accused on 17th of July, 2014 taking advantage of minor girl having been alone in her house, at 2 p.m. forcibly committed sexual assault upon her. 23. Having considering evidence as aforesaid, case set out on behalf of appellant that the prosecution has not proved her birth certificate though placed on record or that her evidence does not find corroboration from the independent witness being PW 9 Malti, who did not support the case of prosecution, by itself is not sufficient to dislodge the case of prosecution. More particularly, as stated aforesaid, when there is no challenge to date of birth as 13th of March, 1998 as deposed by prosecutrix and though PW 9 Malti has not supported the case of prosecution, evidence of prosecutrix by itself is reliable which is substantially found corroborated by her mother and medical evidence on record. 24. In the circumstances, prosecution has established charge levelled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Appeal is thus, devoid of merit and hence liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following order. Appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.