JUDGMENT B.K. NAYAK, J. - Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction U/s. 376(2)(f), 448 of IPC and sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year more U/s. 376(2)(f) and Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months U/s. 448 of IPC passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-1), Balasore in Sessions Trial No. 61/244 of 11/08, the appellant has filed this appeal from jail. 2. The prosecution case as per the FIR is that on 19.10.2007 at about 6 PM, the informant-Sanju Singh had gone out leaving her 3-year- old minor daughter-Litu Singh alone in the house. When she came back after sometime, she found the accused-appellant had entered inside her house and committed rape on the victim-girl. On seeing the informant, appellant fled away. Informant shouted (chora, chora), went inside the house and found the wearing apparels of the victim-girl stained with blood and that she was bleeding from her private part and fallen unconscious. Informant sprinkled water on her face and the victim regained her sense and disclosed the name of the appellant who left her in that condition. Hearing the shouts of the informant, villagers came to the spot and chased the appellant but could not catch him. Informant submitted written report, on the basis of which the OIC, Remuna Police Station registered the case U/s. 376 (2)(f), 448 of IPC and himself took up the investigation. 3. During course of investigation, the OIC examined the witnesses and issued requisition for medical examination of the victim and seized the wearing apparels of the victim and other materials. On completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused. 4. During course of trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. PWs 1 and 2 are co-villagers of the informant. PW-3 is the Medical Officer, who conducted the potency test of the appellant. PW-4 is the minor victim-girl, who was not examined as a witness since the trial Court on test found that she was not able to understand the questions and give rational answers. PW-5 is the lady Medical Officer who examined the victim-girl on police requisition. PW-6 is the informant and mother of the victim. PWs-7 & 8 are police constables, who are witnesses to seizure. PW-9 is the Investigating Officer. PW-10 is the police constable, who accompanied the accused for his medical test. 6. PW-5 is the lady Medical Officer who examined the victim-girl on police requisition. PW-6 is the informant and mother of the victim. PWs-7 & 8 are police constables, who are witnesses to seizure. PW-9 is the Investigating Officer. PW-10 is the police constable, who accompanied the accused for his medical test. 6. The defence in support of its plea of false implication and that the appellant at the relevant point of time performed Akhada and was not present at the spot, only examined one witness. 7. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused-appellant guilty of the offences and accordingly passed order of conviction and sentences as mentioned above. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that having regard to the fact that the informant was indebted to the Peusi of the appellant for consuming Handia on credit and being unable to pay the price thereof when asked for, she has foisted a false case against the appellant. This enmity coupled with the defence evidence of alibi should have been enough to suspect the veracity of the prosecution case. 9. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that though suggestion was given to the informant to the effect that she was consuming Handia on credit from the Peusi of the appellant, such suggestion has been denied and besides that the defence has not led any evidence to prove any such indebtedness of the informant and any animosity arising out of such credit transaction. He further submits that coupled with the medical evidence of PW-5, who found injury on the private part of the victim-girl aged of 3 years old, evidence of the ionformant-PW-6 is sufficient to record a finding of conviction. He also submits that on the face of the prosecution evidence, the defence evidence of DW-1 pales to insignificance. 10. PW-6 is the mother of the victim-girl who stated that at the time of occurrence she had gone out with her son and that the victim was alone in the house. Shortly after, when she returned, she saw the accused/appellant running away from her house. She found the victim lying unconscious in a pool of blood and she was bleeding from her private part and her wearing apparels were soaked with blood. She took the victim to Remuna hospital, where the doctor advised her to take her to DHH, Balasore where she was examined. She found the victim lying unconscious in a pool of blood and she was bleeding from her private part and her wearing apparels were soaked with blood. She took the victim to Remuna hospital, where the doctor advised her to take her to DHH, Balasore where she was examined. She lodged a written report at Remuna P.S. and the OIC scribed the report as per her instruction. After it was scribed, he read over and explained its contents to her and she put her LTI. She states that the victim regained her unconscious during her treatment at DHH, Balasore and during course of investigation police seized wearing apparels of the victim which were a frock and chadi marked as MOs I & II during trial. In cross-examination, she states that when she returned, she found the door of the house was open and seeing her, the appellant started running from her house and she shouted ‘thief’, ‘thief’. In her cross-examination she stated that FIR was lodged after 2 to 3 days of the incident. This delay in lodging the FIR, however, cannot be a ground to suspect the veracity of the prosecution case. No plausible and acceptable defence has been put forth. PW-6 also denied the suggestion that she was indebted to the puesi of the appellant for which the grand-mother of the appellant demanded the same from her. She has denied the suggestion that on the date of the occurrence, the appellant had gone to Remuna Market to play Akhada. Nothing substantial has been brought out in the cross-examination of PW-6 to impeach her credit and credibility. 11. PW-5, the lady Medical Officer states in her evidence that on 21.10.2007 she examined the victim-girl, who is aged about 3 years. Though she found no bodily injury, she however, found tenderness in the vaginal vulva region of the victim and the victim’s hymen had been torn at 5 O’ clock position admitting little finger. PW-5 also found blood stains on the private part of the victim and she specifically stated that the injuries are clear sign of recent sexual intercourse. She proved her report at Ext. 5. In the cross-examination, she admits that in case of medical test of a minor, the consent of the parents was mandatory and that she had taken the consent of the mother of the victim. She proved her report at Ext. 5. In the cross-examination, she admits that in case of medical test of a minor, the consent of the parents was mandatory and that she had taken the consent of the mother of the victim. The victim’s mother did not put her LTI on the report. It transpires that the mother of the victim is an illiterate lady. She had stated in her evidence that the doctor examined the victim-girl. Therefore the mere absence of the signature of LTI of PW-6 on the medical report would not be ground to reject the medical evidence. Nothing substantial has been brought out in the cross-examination of the doctor so as to disbelieve her evidence and her report. 12. PW-3, the doctor, who examined the appellant stated as per his report Ext. 3 that the appellant was capable of sexual intercourse. But he did not find any sign of recent sexual intercourse. Evidently, the appellant was examined medically on 08.03.2007 whereas the occurrence took place about 5 months before. Therefore, it is quite natural that no mark of injury, if any, sustained during occurrence, could be available 5 months thereafter. Therefore, absence of any injury on the body or private part of the appellant cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution evidence with regard to the occurrence. PW-7 & 8 the police constables who are witnesses to seizure of vaginal swab of the victim as per the seizure list marked as Ext. 7. 13. PW-2, a post occurrence witness, who had chased the appellant soon after the occurrence, turned hostile. But his evidence reveals that he heard that the victim-girl had been raped and in his cross-examination by the prosecution he admits that he had taken the victim-girl to Remuna Police Station. In case, there was no such occurrence, there would have been no occasion for PW-2 to take the victim to the police station. It is, therefore, clear that at the time of trial PW-2 tried to hide the truth and part of his evidence rather supports the prosecution case. The evidence of PW-1 corroborates the evidence of PW-6 and the medical evidence to the extent that on being informed by PW-6 that her daughter had been sexually assaulted by appellant, PW-1 found that the victim was bleeding from her private part and the informant took her to the hospital and to the police station. The evidence of PW-1 corroborates the evidence of PW-6 and the medical evidence to the extent that on being informed by PW-6 that her daughter had been sexually assaulted by appellant, PW-1 found that the victim was bleeding from her private part and the informant took her to the hospital and to the police station. Though, PW-6 does not speak in her evidence the name of the scribe of the FIR, PW-1 himself stated in his evidence that he scribed the FIR as per the instruction of PW-6 and read over and explained the contents thereof to her, whereupon she put the LTI on the same. PW-1 has proved the FIR as Ext. 1 and his signature as Ext. 1/1. PW-1 is also a witness to the seizure of the wearing apparels of the victim. Though during his cross-examination, he failed to give exact colour of the dress that was seized by the police, that cannot be a ground to disbelieve the seizure. Rather it would lend assurance to his evidence inasmuch as after long lapse of time a person cannot recognize the colour of the dress which he saw years before only for once. Nothing material has been brought out in the evidence of PW-1 so as to disbelieve his evidence. 14. PW-9 is the Investigating Officer, who received the FIR lodged by PW-6 and he deposed about the manner of conducting investigation. No contradiction of any sort has been brought out during his cross-examination. 15. The only defence witness has stated that on the alleged date of the incident he accompanied with the appellant and some others went to Badi Khala and they started from their village around 11 AM and thereafter they went to Remuna and reached there at 4 PM and played Akhada upto 1 AM to 2 AM in the night and thereafter they returned to the village. However, in his cross-examination, he was unable to state on which date and at what time he came to play Akhada. The occurrence took place between 5 PM to 6 PM. Since DW-1 has not given any exact time, the possibility of presence of the appellant at the spot and committing offence and thereafter going to Akhada cannot be ruled out. In the circumstances the shaky evidence of DW-1 cannot be enough to suspect the veracity of the prosecution case and the prosecution evidence. 16. Since DW-1 has not given any exact time, the possibility of presence of the appellant at the spot and committing offence and thereafter going to Akhada cannot be ruled out. In the circumstances the shaky evidence of DW-1 cannot be enough to suspect the veracity of the prosecution case and the prosecution evidence. 16. In the aforesaid analysis, this Court finds that the conviction of the appellant is well justified and require no interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.