JUDGMENT AND ORDER Paran Kumar Phukan, J. The judgment and order dated 19.03.2015 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur in Sessions Case No. 71(NL)/2014 convicting the accused appellant under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC and sentencing him to Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to Simple Imprisonment for 6 (six) months has been assailed in this appeal. 2. The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that in the morning of 05.06.2007, the accused appellant Kingkong Das committed rape upon the daughter of the informant in his shop. On an FIR lodged by the father of the girl, Dhakuakhana P.S. Case No. 85/2007 was registered and on completion of the investigation Charge-Sheet was laid against the accused appellant. 3. The case came up for trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur. During trial, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses including the two Investigating Officers. The defence plea is of total denial. The learned Sessions Judge on conclusion of the trial found the accused appellant guilty under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and sentenced him accordingly as stated above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. A. Khanikar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused appellant submits that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge without proper appreciation of the evidence on record convicted the accused appellant solely on the testimony of the victim girl. He further contends that there is no medical evidence to corroborate her testimony regarding commission of rape upon her. He has also assailed the prosecution case on the ground that the mother of the victim girl before whom she disclosed the incident has not been examined. Canvassing innocence of the accused appellant, he submits that this false case has been foisted against him for some other reason. 5. Controverting the submissions, Mr. B J Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submits that in a case of rape, conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim girl. 6. He submits that in the instant case, she was aged about 10/11 years at that time and her evidence inspires full confidence and the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused appellant on her testimony. 6. He submits that in the instant case, she was aged about 10/11 years at that time and her evidence inspires full confidence and the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused appellant on her testimony. It is further contended that non-examination of the doctor who examined the victim is not a ground to reject her testimony and non-examination of the mother of the girl is also not a ground to doubt the veracity of the prosecution case. 7. In the backdrop of the aforesaid contentions, I have gone through the entire evidence particularly that of the victim girl to ensure whether her evidence inspires full confidence and conviction can be based on her sole testimony. 8. The first informant of this case is the father of the victim girl. At the time of occurrence, he was not at home and he was informed by a man that his daughter was crying. Having come to know about it, he returned to his home from the place of his work and found his daughter crying and on being asked, she did not disclose anything to him. His evidence clearly reveals that nothing was disclosed to him by his daughter but in spite of that on that very day, he lodged an FIR, Ext. 1 before O/C, Dhakuakhana Police Station alleging therein that at about 9 am on that day, the accused appellant committed rape upon his daughter in his shop and it has also been alleged that there was bleeding from her private parts. He resiled from his earlier version given in the FIR and consequently, even though, he has not been declared hostile by the prosecution, he is not found to be wholly reliable and trustworthy. His evidence that his daughter was crying when he arrived at his home has shown that something had happened to his daughter. He appears to have suppressed the actual facts while adducing evidence in Court, but this cannot be a ground to reject the testimony of his daughter. 9. In cross-examination, by defence, he admitted that he came to know that his daughter sustained injury when trying to climb a tree. According to him, the FIR was written by somebody else but he has not named the person who had scribed the FIR. 9. In cross-examination, by defence, he admitted that he came to know that his daughter sustained injury when trying to climb a tree. According to him, the FIR was written by somebody else but he has not named the person who had scribed the FIR. He concealed the actual facts, probably he was afraid that the revelation would expose his daughter to shame and ignominy in the society. 10. PW2, PW3 and PW4 could not throw any light on the matter and they denied having any knowledge regarding the occurrence. The prosecution is mainly relying on the testimony of PW5, the victim girl, who claims to have been raped by the accused appellant. At the relevant time, she was aged about 10/11 years but there is no medical evidence in this regard apart from the oral testimony of her father, PW1. In a case of rape, the victim is always considered to be a star witness of the occurrence. She is the only witness to say what had happened to her. If her statement itself is found to be worthy of credence and inspires confidence, based on such evidence, punishment for rape is permissible. In the case of Radhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2007) 12 SCC 57 , the Apex Court observed as follows: "6. It is now well settled that a finding of guilt in a case of rape, can be based on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix. The very nature of offence makes it difficult to get direct corroborating evidence. The evidence of the prosecutrix should not be rejected on the basis of minor discrepancies and contradictions. If the victim of rape states on oath that she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse, her statement will normally be accepted, even if it is uncorroborated, unless the material on record requires drawing of an interference that there was consent or that the entire incident was improbable or imaginary. Even if there is consent, the act will still be a "rape", if the girl is under 16 years of age. It is also well settled that absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim will not by itself falsify the case of rape, nor construed as evidence of consent. Even if there is consent, the act will still be a "rape", if the girl is under 16 years of age. It is also well settled that absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim will not by itself falsify the case of rape, nor construed as evidence of consent. Similarly, the opinion of a doctor that there was no evidence of any sexual intercourse or rape, may not be sufficient to disbelieve the accusation of rape by the victim. Bruises, abrasions and scratches on the victim especially on the forearms, wrists, face, breast, thighs and back are indicative of struggle and will support the allegation of sexual assault. The Courts should, at the same time, bear in mind that false charges of rape are not uncommon. There have also been rare instances where a parent has persuaded a gullible or obedient daughter to make a false charge of a rape either to take revenge or extort money or to get rid of financial liability. Whether there was rape or not would depend ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case." 11. Keeping in mind the observations of the Apex Court, let me now turn to the evidence of the victim girl to ascertain whether the accused appellant committed rape on her. Her evidence is that at the time of occurrence, she was waiting outside and her father was in the paddy field. At that time, she was called by the accused who had a shop nearby, she went to the shop and purchased fried grams to eat and while she was about to return to her home, it started raining. The accused appellant at that time gagged her mouth, took her inside his shop, removed her pant and committed rape on her. It is in her evidence that there was bleeding due to injuries on her private parts. Her evidence also reveals that on that day itself, she informed about the incident to her mother. 12. Criticising the prosecution for its failure to examine the mother, the learned counsel for the accused appellant submits that in the absence of her evidence, it would be too hazardous to convict the accused appellant on the testimony of the victim girl (PW5). 13. Mr. 12. Criticising the prosecution for its failure to examine the mother, the learned counsel for the accused appellant submits that in the absence of her evidence, it would be too hazardous to convict the accused appellant on the testimony of the victim girl (PW5). 13. Mr. Khanikar, learned counsel for the accused appellant further submits that the investigation of the case was conducted in a very slipshod manner and police did not examine the nearby witness to ascertain whether the victim girl entered into the shop of the accused appellant on that day. Another most important lacuna in prosecution case is that no medical report has been produced and even the Investigating Officer did not collect the medical examination report of the victim. No doctor has been examined by the prosecution. The evidence of the victim reveals that she was in hospital for about one month. It was the bounden duty of the Investigating Officer in such a case to collect the medical report and prosecution was also duty bound to examine the doctor, who examined the girl, to ascertain whether the story given by the girl that she was raped and there was bleeding from her private parts was true. It was a very serious lapse on the part of the Investigating Officers. The Investigating Officer appears to have sent requisition for the injury report but the hospital authority informed that Dr. Gitali Dutta, who examined the girl, was on study leave. This could not have been a valid ground for non-examination of the doctor in a case of rape. Moreover, the Investigating Officer sent the requisition on 10.06.2013, although, the occurrence took place on 05.06.2007, which itself shows that the Investigating Officers were not at all interested to conduct investigation and it was done in a very perfunctory manner. However, accusation of rape brought by the victim cannot be disbelieved for non examination of the doctor, more particularly, when her evidence inspires full confidence. 14. On perusal of the records, it is found that the girl was sent to the Court for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 27.06.2007, even though, the occurrence took place on 05.06.2007. The reasons for delayed recording of the statement has not been assigned neither by the prosecution nor by the Investigating Officers. 14. On perusal of the records, it is found that the girl was sent to the Court for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 27.06.2007, even though, the occurrence took place on 05.06.2007. The reasons for delayed recording of the statement has not been assigned neither by the prosecution nor by the Investigating Officers. But on scrutiny of her evidence with regard to her earlier statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is found that there is full corroboration in her evidence with regard to her earlier statement and defence could not elicit anything from her to discredit her evidence. There is also no contradiction in her evidence with regard to her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On scrutiny of her evidence, I find her wholly reliable and trustworthy. 15. The learned Trial Court while placing implicit reliance on the evidence adduced by the victim girl referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam reported in, (1998) 8 SCC 635 , wherein, the Apex Court observed that: "The Courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a Court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion. The Court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self-inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable." 16. It is the settled proposition of law that conviction can be based in a case of rape on the sole testimony of the prosecturix or the victim. It is the settled proposition of law that conviction can be based in a case of rape on the sole testimony of the prosecturix or the victim. In the present case, the victim has categorically stated in her evidence that the accused appellant took her inside his shop, laid her down on a piece of wood and removed her pant and committed rape on her as a result of which there was profuse bleeding. She was a girl aged about 10/11 years at that time having no animosity with the accused appellant, she consistently stated that the accused appellant committed rape on her and there is nothing in the record to show that she had any other reason to falsely implicate the accused appellant in the case. 17. In the case of Om Prakash v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2006 2214, the Apex Court observed as follows:- "It is settled law that the victim of sexual assault is not treated as accomplice and as such, her evidence does not require corroboration from any other evidence including the evidence of a doctor. In a given case even if the doctor who examined the victim does not find sign of rape, it is no ground to disbelieve the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. In normal course a victim of sexual assault does not like to disclose such offence even before her family members much less before public or before the police." 18. In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in various cases including the above referred case and on consideration of the evidence of the victim girl, I find no reason to doubt the testimony of the victim that the accused appellant took her to his shop and committed rape on her as a result of which there was profuse bleeding from her vaginal organ. The uncontroverted testimony of the victim is that she was in hospital for about one month which itself shows that she received grievous injuries in her private organ, which clearly indicate that rape was committed on her and it was none other than the accused appellant who committed the same. 19. The uncontroverted testimony of the victim is that she was in hospital for about one month which itself shows that she received grievous injuries in her private organ, which clearly indicate that rape was committed on her and it was none other than the accused appellant who committed the same. 19. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and having gone through the evidence on record and the impugned judgment of the learned Courts below, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment which calls for interference in this appeal. Consequently, the judgment of the learned Trial Court is affirmed and conviction and sentence of the accused appellant is maintained. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment to the learned Court below for information and necessary action. The accused appellant is directed to surrender before the Trial Court within a month to serve out the sentence.