JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal has been instituted against Judgment dated 11.1.2016 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Chamba Division Chamba (HP) in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2015, whereby appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offences under Sections 342, 366A, 376 and 506 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act' for convenience sake), has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section 366A IPC, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for six months. He has been convicted and sentenced under Section 342 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one month. He has further been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence punishable under Section 506 IPC, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of two months. Though the accused has been convicted under Section 376 IPC, but no sentence separately has been passed under Section 376 IPC in view of the fact that he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 4 of the POCSO Act to under rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 26.12.2014, prosecutrix alongwith her mother Smt. Bhagtu and Uncle Ramesh Chand reported to the police that the prosecutrix was a student of 6th class. On 24.12.2014, when she had gone to fetch water from the tap, accused came there and asked the prosecutrix to accompany him to his house for bringing some articles from the shop. Prosecutrix refused but accused forcibly caught hold of her hand and dragged her to his house. He threatened to do away with her life. On 24.12.2014, when she had gone to fetch water from the tap, accused came there and asked the prosecutrix to accompany him to his house for bringing some articles from the shop. Prosecutrix refused but accused forcibly caught hold of her hand and dragged her to his house. He threatened to do away with her life. Prosecutrix was locked in the room and accused threatened her with a knife and after locking the room from outside, he went to the house of his maternal aunt (Massi). Accused returned at 6 PM and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. On the next day, during day time, he has committed sexual intercourse with her. At about 7 PM he left her in front of her house and threatened to do away with her life, in case she disclosed the incident. Prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother. Matter was reported to Lady Constable Shelja. FIR was registered. Site plan was prepared. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded. Prosecutrix was medically examined. Accused was also examined. Investigation was completed. Challan was put in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. He has denied the case of the prosecution. Accused was convicted and sentenced as noticed above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Parmod Thakur, Additional Advocate General, has supported Judgment dated 11.1.2016. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the judgment and record carefully. 7. PW-1 (name withheld) is the prosecutrix. She testified that on 24.12.2014, at about 2 PM, she had gone to fetch water from the tap. Accused met her there. He requested her to go to the shop and offered her money for bringing household articles from the shop. She refused. However, accused took her to his house. He took her to the room and bolted the door from inside and showed knife. He threatened her not to cry. He left the room saying he was going to the house of his aunt. He threatened her not to raise cries and bolted the door from outside. He returned to the room at about 6 PM. He took her to the room and bolted the door from inside and showed knife. He threatened her not to cry. He left the room saying he was going to the house of his aunt. He threatened her not to raise cries and bolted the door from outside. He returned to the room at about 6 PM. He threatened her and committed rape upon her without her consent. He confined her in the room on the next day also and during day time he again committed rape with her. On that day, he left her in her house with the threatening not to disclose the incident to anyone. Her mother asked about her absence. She disclosed the entire incident to her. Thereafter, she, her mother, uncle and ex-Pradhan Singhi Ram visited the police station. FIR Ext. PW-1/A was lodged. She was medically examined. Her MLC is mark A. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that there was a Shiv Mandir near the tap. She had not gone to the tap which was near the Shiv Mandir. There were 3-4 public taps in the village. She had gone to the tap which was near the house of one Guddu. She also admitted that the house of her grand father was near her house. No one met her at that time at the tap. House of accused was situate at a distance of 1-2 minutes’ walk from the tap. She had not bolted the door from inside. There was one window in the room of the accused. She did not try to open the window to raise alarm. She had also not knocked the door from inside to raise alarm. Accused had returned to the room at about 6 PM. She was reexamined by the learned Public Prosecutor. In the reexamination, she deposed that she had received injuries on her forehead, nose, right cheek and right shoulder. Injury on her shoulder was sustained by her when accused tore her shirt and injury on cheek was sustained when accused gave tooth bite on her cheek. She had also sustained injuries on her forehead and nose. 8. Bodh Raj (PW-2) deposed that on 25.12.2014, he was called by the villagers to accompany them to the Police Station. He inquired from the prosecutrix and her mother regarding missing of the prosecutrix from previous day. She had also sustained injuries on her forehead and nose. 8. Bodh Raj (PW-2) deposed that on 25.12.2014, he was called by the villagers to accompany them to the Police Station. He inquired from the prosecutrix and her mother regarding missing of the prosecutrix from previous day. Prosecutrix told that she went to fetch water from tap after 4 PM. Accused had taken her to his house. He had taken her on the pretext that he wanted to purchase some articles from the shop and when victim refused, he forcibly took her to his house and confined her in a room. Accused has done forcible sexual intercourse with her on 24.12.2014 and on the next day i.e. 25.12.2014 as well. Police got prosecutrix medically examined. 9. Bhagtu (PW-3) testified that she was the mother of the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix was 13 years old. Her husband was at Bharmour in connection with labour work. At about 2 PM her daughter went to fetch water from the tap in the village but she did not return from the tap on that day. She told her brother-in-law Ramesh. They searched for the prosecutrix in the village but she could not be traced. On 25.12.2014, they searched her in their relations and in the village and at about 7 PM she returned to the house herself. She inquired from the prosecutrix then she told her that accused met her at the tap and asked her to accompany her to his house. Accused also said that he would give some money to bring some articles from the shop. On her refusal, accused caught hold of her hand and took her to his house. She also disclosed that accused threatened her with knife. Accused locked her in the room and went to the house of aunt (Massi). He retuned to the house at 6 PM. Prosecutrix told that the accused had committed sexual intercourse with her against her wishes. She also told that on the next day, in day time, accused committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Accused had left her near her house. In her cross-examination, she deposed that she did not disclose to anybody in the village but continued to search for her daughter. There were about hundred houses in the village. She searched for her daughter till 8 PM. Thereafter, she told her brother-in-law Ramesh about the missing of the prosecutrix. Accused had left her near her house. In her cross-examination, she deposed that she did not disclose to anybody in the village but continued to search for her daughter. There were about hundred houses in the village. She searched for her daughter till 8 PM. Thereafter, she told her brother-in-law Ramesh about the missing of the prosecutrix. She admitted that she had not disclosed about missing of prosecutrix to the Ward Member. Stated that he was not in the village on that day. 10. Ramesh Kumar (PW-4) has proved the Parivar Register Ext. PW-4/A. 11. Dr. Suruchi Chauhan (PW-5) has examined the prosecutrix. She issued MLC Ext. PW-5/B. According to her opinion, there was evidence of recent sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. But no semen was found on any of the exhibits. Hymen was ruptured allowing one finger, vulva was within normal limits, vagina was also within normal limits. In her cross-examination, she deposed that the Perineum tear was not bleeding at the time of examination. 12. Dr. Rishi Puri (PW-6) has examined the accused. He issued MLC Ext. PW-6/B. 13. Ramesh Kumar (PW-7) deposed that on 24.12.2014, his sister-in-law told in the evening that her daughter was missing. She had gone to bring water at 2 PM and had not returned. They searched for her in the village but could not trace her. On the next day, prosecutrix returned at 7 PM and she told that accused had dropped her near her house. Mother inquired from the prosecutrix where she had gone. She narrated the entire episode to her mother. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that there were around eighty houses in the village. They used to fetch water from the tap near their house and some times they used to fetch water from other tap which was on upper side of their house. 14. Constable Pushap Raj (PW-8) deposed that he was associated by SHO during the investigation. Accused made disclosure statement Ext. PW-8/A, before the Investigating Officer that the cloth which he used for cleaning after sexual intercourse by him, was hidden in the forest. Cloth was recovered. It was taken into possession vide Ext. PW-8/B. 15. Retired Inspector Abhey Singh (PW-15) deposed that he was posted as SHO Police Station, Tissa during 2014-15. On 26.12.2014, prosecutrix and her mother recoded FIR Ext. PW-1/A. prosecutrix was medically examined. MLC Ext. PW-5/B was obtained. Cloth was recovered. It was taken into possession vide Ext. PW-8/B. 15. Retired Inspector Abhey Singh (PW-15) deposed that he was posted as SHO Police Station, Tissa during 2014-15. On 26.12.2014, prosecutrix and her mother recoded FIR Ext. PW-1/A. prosecutrix was medically examined. MLC Ext. PW-5/B was obtained. He visited the spot and prepared site plan Ext. PW-15/A. He recovered bed sheet from the house of accused. Accused made a disclosure statement Ext. PW-8/A, on the basis of which a cloth was recovered. He prepared the site plan. 16. What emerges from the appraisal of the evidence discussed herein above is that the accused has forcibly taken the prosecutrix to his house on 24.12.2014. He locked her in the room and thereafter went to the house of his aunt. In the evening, he committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. On the next day also he committed rape upon her without her consent. He dropped her near her house on 25.12.2014 at 7 PM. Date of birth of the prosecutrix is 25.12.2001 as per Ext. PW-4/A i.e. Parivar Register and Ext. PW-13/B i.e. School Leaving Certificate. She has categorically deposed that she was forcibly taken by the accused to his house on the pretext of buying some articles from the shop. She was threatened by the accused. Statement of prosecutrix (PW-1) is duly corroborated by her mother Bhagtu (PW-3). Bhagtu (PW-3) testified that the entire episode was narrated by her daughter and also the manner in which she was forcibly taken by the accused and rape was committed upon her on 24.12.2014 as well as on 25.12.2014. 17. The statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) is duly corroborated by Dr. Suruchi Chauhan (PW-5). She issued MLC Ext. PW-5/B. According to her final opinion, there was evidence of recent sexual intercourse upon the prosecutrix, though no semen was found on the exhibits. Prosecutrix has also received injuries on her person. Human blood was detected on Ext. 1b (Pajami) and Ext. 1e (underwear) of the prosecutrix. Semen was not detected on these exhibits. Human blood was detected on Ext. 3a (underwear of the accused), but it was insufficient for blood grouping. Human semen was also detected in this exhibit. Blood was also detected on exhibit 1h (pubic hair of the prosecutrix) but same was insufficient for further examination, though semen was not detected in this exhibit. Blood and semen were not detected in Ext. 3a (underwear of the accused), but it was insufficient for blood grouping. Human semen was also detected in this exhibit. Blood was also detected on exhibit 1h (pubic hair of the prosecutrix) but same was insufficient for further examination, though semen was not detected in this exhibit. Blood and semen were not detected in Ext. 1a (shirt of prosecutrix), Ext. 1c (slacks of prosecutrix), Ext. 1d (bra of the prosecutrix) Ext. 1f (vaginal swab of the prosecutrix), Ext. 1g (pericervical swab of the prosecutrix), Ext. 3b (pubic hair of accused), Ext. 3c (smegma swab of accused) Ext. 5 (bed sheet) and Ext. 6 (cloth piece). Merely that the human blood and semen were not detected on all these exhibits, will not falsify the case of the prosecution. Statement of the prosecutrix, as noticed above, has been duly corroborated by medical evidence. Prosecutrix was minor at the time of the occurrence. Accused has committed forcible sexual intercourse on 24.12.2014 as well as on 25.12.2014. Accused has wrongly confined the prosecutrix in his house. He has criminally intimated her. Accused has also seduced the prosecutrix to have illicit sexual intercourse with him. 18. Thus, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court. 19. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.