JUDGMENT : Indira Jain, J. 1. This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 04.06.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gondia in Sessions Trial No. 39/2013. By the said judgment and order, appellant/accused was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under: (i) Complainant Sheelabai Tembhurnikar is resident of Kattipar in Tahsil Amgaon, District Gondia. She is mother of the victim. On 10.11.2012, husband of complainant had gone for labour work. At around 01:00 p.m. complainant was whitewashing wall of her house. Victim, a ten year old daughter of complainant and Samir, a five year old son, were playing in the courtyard. (ii) According to prosecution, at around 01:15 p.m. accused came to the house of complainant. He started playing songs on his mobile and took the victim and Samir inside the house. At around 02:00 p.m. he unclothed the victim and committed sexual intercourse with her. After committing sexual assault, accused left the house. (iii) Complainant entered the house and saw victim weeping. She inquired from her. Victim told her that blood was oozing from her private part and disclosed the incident to her. Complainant saw blood oozing from private part of the victim. Knicker of victim was also found stained with blood. Complainant searched the accused, but he was not found. (iv) At about 03:00 p.m. husband of complainant came to the house. He and other villagers took search of the accused, but his whereabouts were not known. Sarpanch of village was informed about the incident. Then report at Police Station Amgaon was lodged. Crime No. 104/2012 was registered against the accused. (v) PW-9 API Suraj Patil took over investigation. Victim was sent for medical examination. PW-5 Dr. Kendre examined the victim and issued medical certificate. On examination, Doctor opined attempt of sexual intercourse. Accused was arrested. He was referred for medical examination. PW-6 Dr. Shende examined the accused. On examination, Doctor did not notice any external injury and no stains of semen on genital part of accused was found. (vi) API Patil visited the spot and recorded spot panchnama. Clothes of victim and accused were seized in the presence of panch-witnesses. Accused was arrested. He was referred for medical examination. PW-6 Dr. Shende examined the accused. On examination, Doctor did not notice any external injury and no stains of semen on genital part of accused was found. (vi) API Patil visited the spot and recorded spot panchnama. Clothes of victim and accused were seized in the presence of panch-witnesses. Seized muddemal was sent to Chemical Analyzer. On completing investigation, charge-sheet was submitted to the Court of learned Magistrate, who in turn committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. 3. Charge of the alleged offence was explained to the accused vide Exh.14. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence is of total denial and false implication. 4. To substantiate the guilt of accused, prosecution examined in all nine witnesses. Considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses, particularly victim, her brother an eyewitness and Medical Officer, trial Court came to the conclusion that accused was guilty of committing sexual assault on prosecutrix and in consequence thereof accused was convicted as stated herein above in paragraph 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, present appeal has been preferred by the original accused. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State. Perused reasonings recorded by trial Court. On meticulous examination of evidence of prosecutrix, her brother and Medical Officer, this Court for below mentioned reasons finds that prosecution has proved the charge against the accused under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Needless to state that in a case of sexual assault, where victim is minor, her evidence plays a significant role, but at the same time she being a child witness, her evidence has to be evaluated with great caution and circumspection. PW-3 is the victim. So far as her age is concerned, it is not in serious dispute that at the time of occurrence, she was minor. 7. It can be seen from the evidence of prosecutrix that on the date of incident, she was playing in the courtyard with her brother. She states that accused took her inside the house and he was playing songs. She and her brother were hearing songs. 7. It can be seen from the evidence of prosecutrix that on the date of incident, she was playing in the courtyard with her brother. She states that accused took her inside the house and he was playing songs. She and her brother were hearing songs. It is stated by victim that accused caught hold her hand, fell her down on the cot, removed her clothes and his clothes, slept on her person and then inserted his private part in her private part. She sustained bleeding injury. She states that accused ran away after the incident. It also appears from the evidence of the victim that her underwear was stained with blood. 8. From the cross-examination of prosecutrix, it can be seen that a contradiction i.e. "A" has been brought on record. This relates to statement of victim that accused first entered the house and then called. This omission does not go to the root of actual incident. Beside this, nothing substantial could be elicited to disbelieve her testimony. 9. PW-4 Samir is younger brother of victim. He is an eye-witness to the incident. He states that he along with his sister was playing in the courtyard. Accused came to their house and took them inside the house for hearing songs on mobile. He states that accused fell her sister down on the bed and committed rape on her. In the cross-examination, he clarifies the meaning of rape as sexual intercourse (Heple). Assailing the evidence of Samir, learned Counsel for appellant submits that Samir does not state the manner of incident in which it has occurred. On a cryptic statement that her sister has been raped, conviction cannot be based. 10. In support of the submission, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Dhanraj S/o Shivram Tagde vs. State of Maharashtra, 2015 All MR (Cri) 501. In this case, rape was committed on a minor girl. Appellant was convicted. Medical evidence and Chemical Analyzer's reports were not supportive to the case of prosecution. There was no supporting evidence and conviction was based only on one word "Heple." In this background, this Court observed that in view of the absence of description of incident conviction was not sustainable. 11. In the instant case, victim fully supports the case of prosecution. She has no reason to grind an axe against the accused. There was no supporting evidence and conviction was based only on one word "Heple." In this background, this Court observed that in view of the absence of description of incident conviction was not sustainable. 11. In the instant case, victim fully supports the case of prosecution. She has no reason to grind an axe against the accused. The evidence of brother, who was also minor at the time of incident, remains unshaken in cross-examination. As such facts in the case relied upon by the learned Counsel for appellant and in the case on hand substantially differ. 12. This takes the Court further to the evidence of Medical Officer Kendre [PW-5]. On 10.11.2012, victim was examined by the Medical Officer. On examination, Doctor found bleeding from vagina, redness over vulva vagina and hymen ruptured. As per the opinion of the Medical Officer, it was a case of attempt to sexual intercourse. Exh.34 is the medical certificate. In cross-examination, Doctor admits that bleeding from vagina may be possible by inserting hard object. Submission of appellant in this regard is that victim and her brother were playing in the courtyard and possibility of bleeding from private part due to insertion of hard object is not ruled out. Though Dr. Kendre opined that it was an attempt of sexual intercourse, on going through medical certificate [Exh.34], it can be seen that Medical Officer has given a definite opinion that there was a forceful sexual intercourse. Medical evidence thus corroborates the evidence of victim. 13. So far as spot-panchnama and seizure-panchnamas of clothes of victim and accused are concerned, panch-witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. Investigating Officer API Suraj Patil [PW-9] states in his evidence that on 10.11.2011, he went to the place of occurrence and recorded spot-panchnama [Exh.45]. From the spot, a mat was recovered. The clothes of victim and accused were seized. Seized articles and clothes were sent to Chemical Analyzer. C.A. Report [Exh.55] indicates that bed cover was having human blood. The clothes of victim were stained with blood and the blood group found was "B." Underwear of accused was also found having human blood. The blood group of victim was determined as group "B". However, blood group of accused could not be determined. From C.A. Reports, it is apparent that clothes of victim and clothes of accused were stained with blood. The blood group of victim was determined as group "B". However, blood group of accused could not be determined. From C.A. Reports, it is apparent that clothes of victim and clothes of accused were stained with blood. Articles recovered from spot were also having blood stains. Though panch-witnesses do not support the prosecution, this Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of Investigating Officer, particularly where no mala-fides are attributed. The incriminating circumstances further strengthen the case of prosecution. 14. In the above background, this Court is of the view that trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. There is no substance and merits in the appeal. Hence, the following order. ORDER Criminal Appeal No. 76/2016 stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.