JUDGMENT : Jay Sengupta, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23rd December 2003 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge in ST Case No. 450/03, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another six months. 2. On 13th February 2002 at about 13:05 hours, PW 1 lodged a First Information Report under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Penal Code alleging that on 12th February 2002 at about 20:00 hours, the appellant took his minor daughter to a lonely place of Gajipur Hospital, sexually harassed her and raped her. His daughter was growing up in his father-in-law's house. Hearing her shouts, the informant's mother-in-law PW 4 rushed to the spot and the appellant fled away. With the help of some local youths, PW 4 admitted the victim at the Amta Hospital in an injured and bleeding condition. As the informant was busy in his daughter's treatment that night, he submitted the complaint on the next day. The victim girl was about 5 years old at the date of occurrence. 3. After completion of investigation the Investigating Officer PW 10 filed a charge-sheet. On 8th September 2003 a charge was framed against the appellant under Section 376 of the Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty and the trial started. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses to bring home the charge. 4. From a careful reading of the evidence on record, it appears that PW 1 was the de facto complainant of the case and the father of the minor victim. He received information about the incident after the victim had been admitted in Hospital. The attending doctor and nurse told him that the victim had been raped and that she had taken the name of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. His parents-in-law also narrated the incident. The appellant was a neighbour of the victim and her grand-parents. PW 1 found blood oozing out from his daughter's private parts for which she was shifted to Uluberia Hospital. The victim told him that the appellant had called her near her house and taken her to a place where he committed rape on her. The appellant was a neighbour of the victim and her grand-parents. PW 1 found blood oozing out from his daughter's private parts for which she was shifted to Uluberia Hospital. The victim told him that the appellant had called her near her house and taken her to a place where he committed rape on her. The incident took place in a lonely place near the Hospital. The victim was discharged after a week. PW 1 then lodged a First Information Report scribed by PW 5. In the cross-examination PW 1 denied that his daughter was suffering from any urinary trouble for which she had to be taken to the Hospital. But thereafter he said that the urinary trouble started after she was ravished. PW 2 was the minor victim girl. After interrogating her, the Learned Trial Court held that she could not be examined as a witness and opined that her age would be between 3 and 4 years. PW 3 was the rickshaw van puller who carried the victim to Amta Hospital. He deposed that the victim used to stay at her maternal uncle's house due to death of her mother. He admitted that there was a discussion about an incident. PW 3 was declared hostile and the Learned Trial Court recorded that it was clear from the demeanour of the witness that he was withholding the truth. PW 4 was the maternal grand-mother of the victim. She was an immediate post- occurrence witness. In the fateful evening after PW 4 returned home, she did not find the victim home. She searched for her. Upon enquiry, PW 6, the daughter-in-law of her brother-in-law told her that she had last seen the victim in the lap of the appellant. PW 4 further deposed that they started searching for the victim. She had a lantern in her hand and PW 6 had a torch. They finally found the victim lying under the 'lungi' of the appellant and seeing them, the appellant pushed them and fled away. The victim was weeping. Blood was coming out of her vagina. With the help of a trolley van, they first shifted the victim to Amta Hospital and then to Uluberia Hospital. The victim was discharged from the hospital after 6/7 days. In her cross-examination, PW 4, admitted that the appellant and they belonged to rival political parties. The victim was weeping. Blood was coming out of her vagina. With the help of a trolley van, they first shifted the victim to Amta Hospital and then to Uluberia Hospital. The victim was discharged from the hospital after 6/7 days. In her cross-examination, PW 4, admitted that the appellant and they belonged to rival political parties. PW 5 was an uncle of the victim and the scribe of the First Information Report. PW 6 was the said daughter-in-law of PW 4's brother-in-law and an immediate post-occurrence witness. She was also a preoccurrence witness. PW 6 deposed that when PW 4 did not find the victim home, she enquired from her and she replied that she had last seen the victim with the appellant. Then they searched for the victim girl. She had a torch in her hand and PW 4 had a lantern. They went near Gajipur Hospital where there were some abandoned quarters in dilapidated condition with bushes in and around. They noticed the appellant bringing out the victim from underneath his 'lungi'. The victim was weeping and the appellant fled away. Blood was coming out from the victim's private parts. The victim was first brought home and then removed to hospital. In her cross-examination, PW 6 stated that she did not tell the Investigating Officer about them carrying torch and lantern as she was not asked about it. She deposed that she was still being threatened by the appellant. PW 7 was the doctor who treated the victim at the Amta Hospital on 12.02.2002 at about 22:50 hours. He was told by the patient party that there was some problem regarding passing of urine. But, he saw redness of vagina and also below urethra. Before being referred to Uluberia Hospital, the victim was in their Hospital for one night. In the cross, he admitted that he did not examine the victim in respect of hymen and did not find fresh blood coming out of the victim's private parts. PW 8 was the police officer who filled up the formal FIR. PW 9 was the doctor who treated the victim at the Uluberia Hospital on 13.02.2002. He was a gynaecologist. He deposed that the victim was referred by the Amta BPHC with the alleged story of rape. PW 9 found that there was external abrasion over vulva and abrasion within the inner side of thigh. PW 9 was the doctor who treated the victim at the Uluberia Hospital on 13.02.2002. He was a gynaecologist. He deposed that the victim was referred by the Amta BPHC with the alleged story of rape. PW 9 found that there was external abrasion over vulva and abrasion within the inner side of thigh. In his cross-examination, PW 9 stated that the victim was discharged from their hospital on 14.11.2002. The first emergency medical officer recorded his observation that there was "retention of urine" with suspected rape. He denied that the copy of the medical prescription was manipulated. PW 10 was the Investigating Officer of the case. In the cross-examination, he contradicted PW 6 that she did not state that the appellant was found in that abandoned place or that they identified him with the help of light or that she told PW 4 about last seeing the victim and the appellant. The minor victim was not in a position to speak. He contradicted PW 4 about her asking PW 6 and getting an answer that PW 6 had seen the victim and the appellant together. PW 10 admitted that he did not send the appellant for medical examination. 5. Ms. Meenal Sinha, Learned Advocate appointed by this Court to defend the appellant, submitted that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is absolutely bad, both in law as well as in fact. She submitted that although the case is based purely on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances that is required to be complete is breached at several places. No independent witness was examined in this case. She submitted that first, the place of occurrence could not be fixed in this case. Neither was the hospital shown in the rough sketch map nor the place of occurrence. She wondered that if PW 6 had seen the appellant taking away the victim girl, then why did she not object. She submitted that the last seen together theory as brought in by PW 6 was introduced for the first time in Court. As regards the source of light, no lantern or torch, as alleged to have been used by PW 4 and PW 6 in identifying the appellant, were seized. She submitted that lodging of the FIR was delayed and the appellant was arrested about 12 days after the alleged incident from his own residence. As regards the source of light, no lantern or torch, as alleged to have been used by PW 4 and PW 6 in identifying the appellant, were seized. She submitted that lodging of the FIR was delayed and the appellant was arrested about 12 days after the alleged incident from his own residence. She submitted that it is quite remarkable that the appellant did not flee nor was he captured by the villagers. No wearing apparels were seized or sent to the FSL. Most importantly, the Investigating Officer did not sent the appellant for medical test about whether he was capable of performing the alleged act. She submitted that the injury report as prepared by PW 7 did not disclose the commission of any crime nor was fresh blood found in the private parts of the victim. According to the Learned Advocate, the best evidence was withheld in this case. For instance, the owner of the house nearby or the nurse who first said that it was a case of rape were not examined. She submitted that even PW 9's report did not inspire confidence. The Learned Advocate further submitted that the charge against the appellant was defective inasmuch as the place and manner of crime were not mentioned. The Learned Advocate for the appellant relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in State of Gujrat vs. Ratan Singh @ Chinubhai Anopsingh Chauhan, (2014) 4 SCC 16 . In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the acquittal of an accused, inter alia, as the prosecution could not establish a complete chain of circumstances to connect him with the murder of the victim. 6. Mr. Navanil De, the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of State strongly supported the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. He submitted that there was no delay in lodging the FIR. The father of the victim, who was staying elsewhere, came and lodged it. According to him the chain of circumstances appearing against the appellant is complete and clearly point toward his guilt. He submitted that as regards the issue of place of occurrence, there was no cross-examination on whether there were rooms in the quarters. He submitted that the Investigating Officer vouched that the place of occurrence was rightly identified. He submitted that the arrest of the accused from his own house did not help him at all. He submitted that as regards the issue of place of occurrence, there was no cross-examination on whether there were rooms in the quarters. He submitted that the Investigating Officer vouched that the place of occurrence was rightly identified. He submitted that the arrest of the accused from his own house did not help him at all. He further submitted that since the appellant was identified by the post-occurrence witnesses, the non-examination of the appellant medically would not be fatal. In fact, the Investigating Officer did not contradict the post-occurrence witnesses on that they had found the victim girl with the appellant. As regards the medical evidence, the Learned Advocate submitted that PW 7 was not a gynaecologist. Yet, he found redness in the affected parts. PW 9, on the other hand, was a gynaecologist. He examined the victim closely and clearly opined about the commission of rape. 7. We have heard the submissions of the Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of both the parties and have perused the evidence adduced in this case and the other materials available on record. 8. First, there was no real delay in lodging the First Information Report. The father of the victim girl, who used to stay elsewhere, had to come and lodge the same, that too after remaining busy for his daughter's treatment for some time. In any event the First Information Report was lodged on the very next day of the night of the occurrence. 9. As regards the place of occurrence, no contradiction appears to be there. In the sketch map a western room in the house was marked as 'A' and referred to as the place of occurrence. The immediate post-occurrence witnesses PWs 4 and 6 clearly gave the description of the place of occurrence which is not inconsistent with each other or with any other evidence or material on record. 10. The charge framed against the appellant also mentioned the place of occurrence and there was no other defect in the framing of charge either. 11. The arrest of the appellant from his own house after about 12/13 days from the date of occurrence and the consequent presumption that he did not flee do not necessarily enure to the benefit of the appellant. There is evidence that immediately after the occurrence the accused fled away. 11. The arrest of the appellant from his own house after about 12/13 days from the date of occurrence and the consequent presumption that he did not flee do not necessarily enure to the benefit of the appellant. There is evidence that immediately after the occurrence the accused fled away. He might have come back after some time and was finally arrested from his house. 12. As regards absence of independent witnesses to the occurrence, the same is quite natural in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is a consistent prosecution case that the occurrence took place in a lonely and dilapidated room on a winter night in a village. In all likelihood no witness, far less an independent one, would have remained there to witness the crime at that hour. Had PWs 4 and 6 not searched for the victim and chanced upon the place of occurrence, they too would not have witnessed the aftermath of such heinous crime. 13. As regards the source of light with which the appellant was identified, PWs 4 and 6 corroborated each other that while searching for the minor victim girl, they were carrying a lantern and a torch. This is quite obvious. Otherwise in the dead of a winter night it would not be possible to venture out into lonely places and amongst dilapidated structures covered with bushes. In such circumstance, non-seizure of the torch or the lantern is not fatal to the prosecution case. PW 6 explained that she did not say about them carrying such lantern and torch as she was not asked about it by the Investigating Officer. 14. The pre-occurrence accounts given by PW 6 that she had seen the appellant and the minor victim together sometime before the occurrence adds to the chain of circumstances appearing against the appellant. Although PW 6 gave such evidence for the first time in Court, the same came out naturally and need not necessarily be disbelieved for the sole reason that she was deposing about it for the first time in Court. PW 4 had corroborated such version of PW 6. Although PW 6 gave such evidence for the first time in Court, the same came out naturally and need not necessarily be disbelieved for the sole reason that she was deposing about it for the first time in Court. PW 4 had corroborated such version of PW 6. The contention of the Learned Advocate for the appellant that why then did PW 6 not object when she saw the two together is not of much significance as the appellant had been a neighbour of the victim and PW 6 might not have found anything worrying in seeing the two together. 15. Most important of all, after their search for the victim girl, PWs 4 and 6 found the appellant bringing out the minor girl from an obnoxious position, visibly in an immediate post-occurrence stage, and thereafter fleeing away from the spot. They found the minor victim girl weeping and blood coming out of her private parts. They immediately took her home and then removed her to hospital. The evidence adduced by PWs 4 and 6 appear to be quite detailed, cogent, consistent and trustworthy. 16. Now as regards the medical evidence adduced by PW 7, the problem disclosed to him about retention of urine alone could have been prompted by an initial reluctance of the victim's relations to come up with the real truth. But gradually they overcame their inhibitions and disclosed the truth as would be evident from the referral by the Amta Hospital to the Uluberia Hospital stating clearly about suspected rape. Although PW 7 did not examine the victim from the angle of examining a rape survivor, yet he found redness in some private parts of the victim. It is germane to mention here that PW 7 was not a gynaecologist. 17. Pw 9, who was a gynaecologist, examined more closely the minor victim at the Uluberia Hospital and in the context of an allegation of rape. He found injuries on the private parts of the victim girl which were clearly not inconsistent with the commission of rape and rather indicated the commission of such an offence. 18. It was indeed a lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer in not sending the appellant for a medical test as regards his capability to perform sexual intercourse. He found injuries on the private parts of the victim girl which were clearly not inconsistent with the commission of rape and rather indicated the commission of such an offence. 18. It was indeed a lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer in not sending the appellant for a medical test as regards his capability to perform sexual intercourse. But, the defence never took up a plea, either by way of cross-examination of witnesses or in the examination of the accused under section 313 of the Code or by adducing any evidence, that the appellant was incapable of committing such act. On the contrary, the appellant was found red-handed leaving the minor victim after committing rape and fleeing away. In view of the circumstances as discussed above, the said failure to examine the appellant medically cannot be held to be fatal to the prosecution case. 19. Non-Seizure of the wearing apparels of victim, albeit another defect in investigation, is not fatal to the prosecution case in view of the abundance of evidence regarding the commission of the offence upon the victim, whether it be the post-occurrence accounts or the medical evidence. The non-seizure of the wearing apparels of the appellant may not be of much consequence since he was arrested after about 12/13 days. 20. The plea of the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the Code about political victimisation is absolutely bald and unsubstantiated. Merely supporting a rival political party cannot efface the evidence of a heinous crime like the rape of a child. 21. The decision Ratan Singh relied upon by the Learned Advocate for the appellant is clearly distinguishable on facts from the present case. In that case there were several other grounds for acquittal like the witnesses coming out with contradictory versions and some with significant improvements. 22. The circumstances as discussed above including the pre-occurrence account of the appellant and the minor victim being seen together, the post occurrence accounts of the appellant fleeing the spot leaving the child weeping and injured after committing the crime and the medical evidence, complete the chain and unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. 23. In view of the above discussions, we hold that the prosecution case has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt as against the appellant and hence, the appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence are upheld. 24. 23. In view of the above discussions, we hold that the prosecution case has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt as against the appellant and hence, the appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence are upheld. 24. A copy of the judgment along with the Lower Court records may be sent down to the learned Trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action. 25. Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities. I agree - Md. Mumtaz Khan, J.