JUDGMENT : Sabina, J. 1. Appellant had faced trial in FIR No. 401/2007 registered at Police Station, Behror, District Alwar qua commission of offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (f) Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as IPC). 2. Prosecution story in brief is that the appellant had raped the prosecutrix. Appellant was working as a conductor on the school bus and had raped the prosecutrix aged about five years, who was a student of class one. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities challan was presented against the appellant. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined eighteen witnesses. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. 4. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 07.12.2007 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 376 (2) (f) I.P.C. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. In the initial version, it was the case of the complainant that the appellant had attempted to commit rape but at a later stage, in an improved version, it had been alleged that the appellant had committed the offence of rape. As per the prosecution story, two students were also present in the bus at the time of alleged occurrence but they were not examined during trial. Driver of the bus had not supported the prosecution story during trial. Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory does not support the prosecution story. Medical examination of the prosecutrix did not corroborate her version with regard to commission of offence of rape. Statement of the prosecutrix was rendered doubtful as she had gone to school after the alleged occurrence and had reported the matter to her parents in the evening. In support of his arguments learned counsel has placed reliance on decision of this Court in Sita Ram v. State of Rajasthan 2014(1) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 31] wherein, it was held as under:- "Though the incident had occurred on 19.2.1987, the F.I.R. was lodged on 20.2.1987. The informant, PW-1 mentioned in his evidence that for want of adequate means of communication, he could not lodge the information earlier. L.R. (Raj.) 31] wherein, it was held as under:- "Though the incident had occurred on 19.2.1987, the F.I.R. was lodged on 20.2.1987. The informant, PW-1 mentioned in his evidence that for want of adequate means of communication, he could not lodge the information earlier. Having regard to the fact that the occurrence had taken place in a village, and that, it is not unlikely that the explanation furnished is ture, I am not inclined to dismiss the prosecution case on the ground of delay. Vis-a-vis the rape, it is however, difficult to concludce without any manner of doubt that the incident had occurred in the manner, as projected by the prosecution. The testimony of PW-1, Ramprasad, PW-5, Choti and PW-8, the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence to conclude that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. Not only it is highly improbable that the appellant could have committed the offending act being fully aware that the parents of the victim were barely a feet away from the place of occurrence, in fact there is no direct evidence of commission of rape. The evidence of the prosecutrix even if accepted on the face value, does not prove the commission of an act to be construed as rape in law. Though the presence of human semen in her wearing apparels as well as in the dhoti of the appellant is in incriminating piece of evidence, the fact that on medical examination, her hymen was found to be intact, detracts from the proposition that he (appellant) had committed rape on her. Moreover, her vaginal swab did not indicate presence of human semen. The prosecutrix was frank enough to disclose to the Court that her statement was given, as desired by her father whom she had accompanied. The medical evidence is also to the effect that the injuries found on her body are possible on a fall." 6. Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh Cr. L.R. (SC) 670 wherein, it was held as under:- "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. L.R. (SC) 670 wherein, it was held as under:- "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 inference 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. 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, writs, 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. " 7. Learned State counsel on the other hand has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the prosecutrix was aged about five years and she has deposed as per the prosecution story. Statement of the prosecutrix was duly corroborated by medical evidence. 8. Prosecutrix had appeared in the witness box as PW-3. At the time of occurrence, prosecutrix was aged about five years. Prosecutrix while appearing in the witness box deposed that on 10.08.2007 she had boarded the school bus and had sat on the front seat. Statement of the prosecutrix was duly corroborated by medical evidence. 8. Prosecutrix had appeared in the witness box as PW-3. At the time of occurrence, prosecutrix was aged about five years. Prosecutrix while appearing in the witness box deposed that on 10.08.2007 she had boarded the school bus and had sat on the front seat. She has further deposed that she had been raped by the appellant and had been threatened that in case she narrated the occurrence to her parents, she would be killed. She did not narrate the occurrence to anybody in the school. However, when she returned home, she narrated the occurrence to her mother. She was having pain in her private part. 9. Prosecutrix was got medically examined on 10.08.2007 at 5.30 p.m. PW-13 Dr. Neelam Kumari proved the Medico Legal Examination Report of the prosecutrix Exhibit P-3. As per the medical opinion possibility of sexual intercourse could not be denied. It was also found on medical examination of the prosecutrix that hymen was red, swollen and inflamed. Discharge was also found present. 10. PW-1 Vinod Kumar Saini (uncle of the prosecutrix), PW-2 Suman Devi (Mother of the prosecutrix), PW-4 Mahendra Kumar (Father of the Prosecutrix), PW-7 Manoj Kumar Saini (Uncle of the prosecutrix) & PW-8 Balveer Singh (Uncle of the prosecutrix) have deposed that the prosecutrix had narrated to them that she had been raped by the appellant. Thereafter, they got the prosecutrix medically examined and reported the matter to the police. 11. PW-18 Yogesh Kumar deposed with regard to investigation conducted by him. 12. Although, in the present case PW-5 Jagdish Prasad driver of the bus has not supported the prosecution case but the said fact does not render the statement of the prosecutrix doubtful. Statement of the prosecutrix being natural inspires confidence. Prosecutrix or her parents had no reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case. Statement of the prosecutrix is duly corroborated by medical evidence. The fact that the other students who were also present in the bus at the time of alleged occurrence have not been examined during trial also does not render the prosecution story doubtful as the prosecution case is duly established from the statement of the prosecutrix, which is duly corroborated by medical evidence. 13. The fact that the other students who were also present in the bus at the time of alleged occurrence have not been examined during trial also does not render the prosecution story doubtful as the prosecution case is duly established from the statement of the prosecutrix, which is duly corroborated by medical evidence. 13. As per the FIR, it was the case of the complainant that every effort had been made to stop the wrong act with his daughter. After registration of the FIR, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. on 14.08.2007, wherein she has categorically deposed that the appellant had raped her. Since, the prosecutrix was of a tender age, it was probable that she might not have been able to explain the incident correctly to the complainant. Prosecutrix must have been in a great trauma after the occurrence. She must have got extremely scared on account of threat given to her by the appellant. It was natural for her to have narrated the occurrence to her family members on account of comfort zone and safety. Every yong child feels that he/she will be protected by his/her family members. When the prosecutrix was at her home she must have felt comfortable, protected, cared and a little fearless from the threat given to her by the appellant. Since, in the present case, the statement of the prosecutrix qua commission of offence of rape by the appellant is duly corroborated by the medical evidence, there is no force in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant fail to advance the case of the appellant as they are based on different facts. 14. In the present case, the learned trial Court had rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 376 (2) (f) I.P.C. No ground for interference is made out.