JUDGMENT : ANJANA PRAKASH, J. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The Appellant has been convicted under section 376 (2) (f) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of which, further two years Rigorous Imprisonment by a Judgment dated 26/28.05.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-II, Sheohar at Sitamarhi in connection with Sessions Trial No. 438 of 2009/188 of 2009 arising out of Sheohar P.S. Case No. 10 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 41 of 2009. 3. The case of the Informant Dulari Devi (P.W. 4) is that while she was sleeping in the house along with her 5 years daughter (name is not disclosed because she is a minor), suddenly in the middle of night at about 10:00 pm. she saw that her child was missing. She ran outside and saw that her daughter was crying nearby under the Tractor. Seeing her, the Appellant fled-away. The child disclosed that she had been raped by the Appellant and she also saw physical injuries on her person including her private part. She was immediately removed to the Hospital where she was being treated. This fardbeyan was given at 11:40 on the same day. 4. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses. Before we proceed any further, we would like to deal with the evidence of the two Doctors. 5. P.W. 6 Dr. Sanjay Kumar, posted at Sub Devi Hospital, Sheohar, who examined the child found the following injuries on her person on the same day : 1. Bleeding from Nose 2. Swelling on both lips 3. Bleeding from vagina 4. Swelling with laceration on perineum extended up to anuigran 2 2/1” 5. Hymen ruptured Age of injury – Within six hours. M.I. Old cut mark on left side lumber Nature – Injury no.4 and 5 are grievous while rest are simple. Note : Patient was referred to SKMCH, Muzaffarpur, Department of F.N.T. for sexual assault. He proves the injury report as Exhibit-1. 6. P.W. 7 Dr. S.P. Choudhary, posted at ANMCH, Gaya, who also physically examined the child found the following injuries on her person as also that she was 4-6 years and had been sexually used :- External Injuries :- 1. Teeth mark bruise on right side of breast. 2. He proves the injury report as Exhibit-1. 6. P.W. 7 Dr. S.P. Choudhary, posted at ANMCH, Gaya, who also physically examined the child found the following injuries on her person as also that she was 4-6 years and had been sexually used :- External Injuries :- 1. Teeth mark bruise on right side of breast. 2. Bruise on left side of Nose ¼” x ¼” 3. Bruise on upper top left side. Secondary Sexual Character : Not developed. Breast Not developed, Auxiliary Hair not present Public Hair Not present Local Examination of Vagina : Bruise and swelling with laceration of perineum 1” x ¾” extend up to annul canal. Hymen clear at 3 O’clock and 6 O’clock position. Thin was bullen discharge from vagina. We, thus, find that the medical evidence supports the factum of rape. 7. P.W. 1 Deokali Devi is the grand-mother of the victim, who stated that on the fateful night, suddenly her daughter-in-law screamed and when they rushed out, they saw the Appellant committing rape upon the grand-daughter and fled away on seeing them. She identified the appellant in Court. She stated that she got up on screaming of her grand-daughter and daughter-in-law. Her attention was drawn to the earlier statement that she had not seen the Appellant committing rape upon the child. 8. P.W. 2 Rajendra Paswan is a neighbour of the Informant, who stated that on the night of the occurrence, suddenly he got up on the screams and saw the child and the Appellant under the Tractor and also saw bleeding injury on a private parts and injuries on her person. In cross-examination, he stated that the Police came the next day, thereafter he gave his statement. His attention was drawn to the earlier statement that he had not stated that he had seen injuries on the victim. 9. P.W. 3 Rajendra Paswan is also a resident of the same locality, who rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the child injured and bleeding. The mother told him that the Appellant had committed rape upon her. The child was then taken to the Hospital. He identified the Appellant. There is nothing else which is of note in his cross-examination. 10. The mother told him that the Appellant had committed rape upon her. The child was then taken to the Hospital. He identified the Appellant. There is nothing else which is of note in his cross-examination. 10. P.W. 4 Dulari Devi corroborated her statement in the fardbeyan and stated that when she woke up on the screams of her child, she saw her under the Tractor crying whereas the Appellant fleeing away from there. Then he saw the child bleeding from her private part and other injuries on her person. She was then taken to the Hospital where she gave her own fardbeyan. She proves material Exhibit-1, i.e. frock. In cross-examination, she explained that on the very same night, they went to the Muzaffarpur on an ambulance. Her attention was drawn to the earlier statement that she had not stated on the cries of the child that she had rushed out. There is nothing else which is of relevance of cross-examination. 11. P.W. 5 Rupnandan Paswan, who is father of the victim, stated that on the night of occurrence, he heard the cries of her daughter. He went outside and saw his child under the Tractor whereas the Appellant was running away. The child had sustained injuries on her person as well as on the private parts. The child disclosed about the occurrence, whereafter she was taken to the Sheohar Hospital where the statement of his wife was recorded on which he signed, which is marked as Exhibit-2. The child was treated at SKMCH, Muzaffarpur. In cross-examination, he stated that he met the Darogajee at Sheohar Hospital at 11:00 pm. and strangely had not been examined by the Darogajee. He stated that they were sleeping inside the hut on the fateful night. 12. The submission of the Appellant is that in the First Information Report, it has been stated that a number of villagers gathered and picked-up the victim but none of them has been examined. Further submission is that Investigating Officer has not been examined and therefore, the place of occurrence has not been proved as also since the Appellant was 21 years of age at the relevant time, a lenient view may be taken. 13. Further submission is that Investigating Officer has not been examined and therefore, the place of occurrence has not been proved as also since the Appellant was 21 years of age at the relevant time, a lenient view may be taken. 13. As discussed above, we find that there is consistent evidence of all the witnesses that on the fateful night, the child was seen crying outside under the Tractor from where the Appellant was seen fleeing away. The child disclosed that the Appellant had committee rape upon her and such corresponding injuries were found by the witnesses and confirmed by the Doctors. 14. In such circumstances, evidently the minor point such as the non-examination of the witnesses, who picked up the child from under the Tractor, is of no relevance. Further, we find non-examination of Investigating Officer in the facts and circumstances of the case has not prejudiced the cause of the Appellant and, therefore, this submission is also rejected. 15. As for showing leniency on account of age of the Appellant, we are not inclined to do so, since the offence is serious in nature. 16. In the result, finding no merit in the Appeal, the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.