JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J —The present appeal is maintained by the appellant/accused/convict (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") , laying challenge to judgment dated 30.09.2016/27.10.2016, passed by learned Special Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 27-S/7 of 2014, whereby the accused was convicted and sentenced for the commission of offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "POSCO Act) and under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") . 2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case can tersely be summarized as under: On 24.05.2014, at about 02:45 p.m., the complainant, who is father of the victim/prosecutrix (name withheld) , through mobile phone, got recorded his statement under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in Police Station, Nerwa. He, in his statement, averred that when the prosecutrix was on her way to school, a person from his village took her in the apple orchard, so he requested the police to visit the spot and take action against the said person. Upon the statement of the complainant, police machinery was put into motion and statement of the mother of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. She has deposed that her husband works in Forest Department and they have three children, viz., two daughters and a son. Their youngest daughter is 12 years of age and studying in 5th class. On 24.05.2014, around 09:00 a.m., when she was collecting grass, the prosecutrix started for school and around 02:00 p.m. she was informed by his brother-in-law (jeth) that the prosecutrix is in the house of Roshni Devi and she seems to be scared. She has further deposed that she went to the house of Smt. Roshni Devi and found the prosecutrix scared. The prosecutrix was not wearing trousers and her school bag was also not there. The prosecutrix, in presence of Roshni Devi, divulged that she was on her way to school, near the apple orchard of one Mehar Singh, accused met her and he caught hold of her. The accused took her to the orchard and gagged her mouth. The accused committed bad act with her and upon hearing that someone is coming, the accused fled away from the spot. Subsequently, the mother of the prosecutrix divulged the incident to her husband and he telephonically reported the matter to the police. The accused took her to the orchard and gagged her mouth. The accused committed bad act with her and upon hearing that someone is coming, the accused fled away from the spot. Subsequently, the mother of the prosecutrix divulged the incident to her husband and he telephonically reported the matter to the police. Police, on the basis of the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix, recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., registered a case against the accused and the investigation ensued. On 24.05.2014, upon the identification of the prosecutrix, the police visited the spot of occurrence and the same was photographed and videographed. Spot map was prepared and a white trouser, a blue and red school belt, which was having name of the school printed on it, and a school bag were recovered from the spot, which were taken into possession. The prosecutrix was medically examined. On 24.05.2014, the accused was arrested and on his medical examination, he was found capable of performing sexual intercourse. The accused also identified the spot of occurrence. During the course of investigation, scientific evidence was also collected and sent for forensic analysis. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and after conclusion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as twenty seven witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he pleaded not guilty. The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence. 4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 30.09.2016/27.10.2016, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act, being greater in degree by keeping in view the mandate of Section 42 of the POCSO Act. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eleven years and also to pay fine of Rs.50, 000/- (rupees fifty thousand) . In default of payment of fine the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The accused was also convicted under Section 506 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, hence the present appeal. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case in hand and the judgment, as passed by the learned Trial Court, is without appreciating the evidence and the law to its true and correct perspective. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case in hand and the judgment, as passed by the learned Trial Court, is without appreciating the evidence and the law to its true and correct perspective. He has further argued that the learned Trial Court has failed to take into consideration the fact that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts and convicted the appellant on the basis of surmises and conjectures, so the appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted. Contrastingly, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the learned Trial Court has passed the judgment after properly appreciating the evidence to its true and correct perspective and law has been correctly applied. He has further argued that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant (convict) conclusively and beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts, so the judgment, as passed by the learned Trial Court, needs no interference by this Court, so the appeal be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal, the learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that as the learned Trial Court has not correctly and rightly appreciated the evidence, so the present appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties we have gone through the record carefully. 8. Avowedly, in sexual offences medical evidence is crucial aid to Courts to convict or acquit the accused, however, the same cannot at all be read in isolation without important ancillary material. In the case in hand, the prosecutrix was allegedly raped by the accused in the morning of 24.05.2014, when she was going to school and subsequently the matter was reported to the police. So, the testimony of the prosecutrix, who was examined as PW-2, is very vital in the case in hand. 9. The prosecutrix was examined as PW-2 and as at the time of her examination she was only 12 years of age, her perception level was checked by the Trial Court by asking questions of general nature. The Court found that she did not understand the sanctity of truth, thus her statement was recorded without administering oath. The prosecutrix has deposed that she is youngest among her siblings. The Court found that she did not understand the sanctity of truth, thus her statement was recorded without administering oath. The prosecutrix has deposed that she is youngest among her siblings. She was studying in 5th standard and on 24.05.2014, she started to school at about 09:00 a.m. As per the prosecutrix, distance from her village to school is about two kilo meters and she used to go on foot to the school. She has further deposed that she was walking alone and when she reached near the fields of Mehar uncle, accused obstructed her way and she objected that she has to attend the school. As per her testimony, as the accused obstructed her way, she got scared and took a slew to come back to her house, but the accused caught hold of her from her left hand. She has further deposed that when she tried to squall, the accused gagged her mouth by his hand. She felt suffocated and the accused dragged her to fields. The prosecutrix has further deposed that accused also threatened to kill her, in case she tries to flee or to disclose anything to anyone. The accused, in the middle of the field, removed her as well as his pants and laid on her. She felt giddiness and also felt that someone is coming. Subsequently, the accused fled away from the spot. The prosecutrix in reply to the court question deposed that she does not know what had happened with her. According to her testimony, when she stood up, she felt pain in her private part and the blood started oozing out of it, so she hide in a pit. The accused again came there, called her and left the spot. She secretly reached the house of Roshni (PW-17) her sister in law. When she was standing underneath the house of Roshni, one Parvati was in the veranda, so she called her. She was scared and had tied her sweater around her waist, as her pants remained on the spot. Parvati took her to the house of Roshni and Roshni came there and gave her a red coloured pajami. Subsequently, PW-19, Surat Singh, of her village informed her mother and she reached on the spot and informed her father. Her father informed the police and the police reached the spot. She identified the spot, where she was outraged. Parvati took her to the house of Roshni and Roshni came there and gave her a red coloured pajami. Subsequently, PW-19, Surat Singh, of her village informed her mother and she reached on the spot and informed her father. Her father informed the police and the police reached the spot. She identified the spot, where she was outraged. Photographs were clicked and her school bag and pants were found lying on the spot. The school bag, pants and a patti (belt) , with the aid of which the accused tied her mouth, were taken into possession. She has further deposed that initially the police brought her to Nerwa and then to Shimla. She was medically examined at Shimla and her blood samples were taken. She divulged the entire incident to the doctor, who has examined her. Subsequently, she was produced before the Court at Chopal and her statement was recorded. The prosecutrix was subjected to intensive crossexamination, but the defence could not extract anything favourable. Starting from the medical and forensic evidence, PW-1, Dr. Nitesh Kanwar, deposed that on 24.05.2016, application, Ex. PW-1/A, was moved by the police for medical examination of the prosecutrix, but as there was no lady doctor in the hospital, he, through his report, Ex. PW-1/B, referred her to Deen Dayal Upadhayaya (DDU) Hospital, Shimla. PW-3, Dr. Parshant Sharma, deposed that on 26.05.2014, the accused was brought by the police for routine examination and at that time accused was showing abnormal behavior. He kept the accused under his observation for an hour. He did not notice any fresh injuries on the person of the accused. His report in this regard is Ex. PW-3/A. He has further deposed that on 28.05.2014, the accused was again brought before him for routine examination and on that day he did not show any abnormal behavior. His report qua his second examination of the accused is Ex. PW-3/B. PW-4, Dr. P.L. Gaunta, Senior Medical Superintendent, DDU Hospital, Shimla, deposed that on 25.05.2014 the prosecutrix was brought to DDU Hospital and Dr. Aarti Sarin (PW-26) medically examined her. He has further deposed that as there was no Gynecologist in the hospital, the prosecutrix was referred to Kamla Nehru Hospital (KNH) , Shimla. He made report, Ex. PW-4/A, over the medico legal certificate of the prosecutrix. 10. Aarti Sarin (PW-26) medically examined her. He has further deposed that as there was no Gynecologist in the hospital, the prosecutrix was referred to Kamla Nehru Hospital (KNH) , Shimla. He made report, Ex. PW-4/A, over the medico legal certificate of the prosecutrix. 10. Now, in the wake of testimony of the prosecutrix, as discussed hereinabove, and in view of the alleged story of the prosecution, the medical evidence needs to be scrutinized. PW-8. Dr. Pritam Singh Thakur, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Nerwa, deposed that on 25.05.2014, through application, Ex. PW-8/A, police requested him to conduct medical examination of the accused. He took into possession the undergarments of the accused. He found the accused capable of performing sexual intercourse. He issued medico legal certificate, Ex. PW-8/B, and his final opinion is Ex. PW-8/C. PW-9, Dr. Atul Chauhan, Assistant Professor, Department of Radiology, Government Dental College, Shimla, deposed that he referred the prosecutrix to DDU Hospital. He after examining the radiographs, opined the dental age of the prosecutrix in between 12 to 14 years. His report is Ex. PW-9/A and X-rays are Ex. PW-9/B-1 to Ex. PW-9/B-4. PW-10, Dr. Ashwani Sood, Radiologist, DDU, Hospital, Shimla, deposed that on 27.05.2014 the prosecutrix was referred to him for determination of her bony age. He, after taking X-rays of the body parts of the prosecutrix, opined her bony age between 8 to 12 years. His opinion is Ex. PW-10/A and skygrams are Ex. PW-10/B-1 to Ex. PW-10/B-4. As per this witness, X-ray forms are Ex. PW-10/C-1 and Ex. PW-10/C-2. 11. Pw-11, Dr. Sangeet Komal, Resident Doctor, KNH, Shimla, deposed that the prosecutrix was brought for gynecological examination before her. She has deposed that the prosecutrix was brought to her with an alleged history of sexual assault. The prosecutrix was examined in KNH, Shimla. She had already changed her clothes and washed her perineal area 2-3 times. The prosecutrix was well oriented to person, place and time and she was found alert and responding to verbal commands. This witness did not notice any injury on her back, breasts, abdomen and thigh area and her vitals were normal. She has found the genitalia of the prosecutrix were normal, developed appropriately, according to the age. She did not notice pubic hair and there was no evidence of any discharge of bleeding. This witness separated labia majora for examination. Hymen was found intact. She has found the genitalia of the prosecutrix were normal, developed appropriately, according to the age. She did not notice pubic hair and there was no evidence of any discharge of bleeding. This witness separated labia majora for examination. Hymen was found intact. No evidence of any injury, induration or tenderness around the introitus. However, she noticed small abrasion on parauretheral area on right side, which was not bleeding actively and was lightly tender to touch. This witness, on rectal examination of the prosecutrix, found uterus normal. Little finger could be introduced without pain. She found uterus anteverted, firm fornix clear. She did not rule out sexual assault. Her report on medico legal certificate, mark-4, is Ex. PW-11/A. This witness, in her cross-examination, has deposed that in forcible sexual intercourse the hymen must be ruptured. She has further deposed that it is possible that despite sexual assault the hymen could not rupture. This witness, during the examination of the prosecutrix, collected the vaginal smear and vaginal swab of the prosecutrix and the same were handed over to Lady Constable Meera (PW-15) . This witness, in her cross-examination, has further deposed that in a case of sexual intercourse by an adult 25 years of age with a girl of 11-12 years of age, injuries may or may not occur over any body part or over the labia minora and majora. 12. Pw-11, Dr. Vinod Gupta, Medical Officer, DDU Hospital, Shimla, deposed that on 05.05.2015, police, through application, Ex. PW-24/A, requested him to obtain blood samples of the accused and the prosecutrix on FTA cards for DNA profiling. He has further deposed that he obtained the blood samples accordingly and put the same in a sealed cover, which was handed over to the police. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that in letters, Ex. PW-24/C and Ex. PW-24/F, the facsimile of seal, with which the parcels were sealed, has not been mentioned. He has voluntarily deposed that they use only one seal to seal every sample. PW-26, Aarti Sarin, Medical Officer, DDU Hospital, deposed that on 25.05.2014, through application, Ex.PW-1/A and endorsement made by Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Nerwa, Ex. PW-1/B, the prosecutrix was brought for medical examination before her. The prosecutrix was 11 years of age and was accompanied by her mother and a Lady Constable. The prosecutrix and her mother gave history of bleeding from her private part. PW-1/B, the prosecutrix was brought for medical examination before her. The prosecutrix was 11 years of age and was accompanied by her mother and a Lady Constable. The prosecutrix and her mother gave history of bleeding from her private part. The prosecutrix urinated twice and defeacated once after the occurrence and also washed her private parts. She has further deposed that according to the mother of the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix did not attain menarche. As per this witness, she has found as under: "On general physical examination: The victim was found conscious, cooperative and well orientated to time, place and person. All the vitals were normal. On systemic examination within normal limit. She found three injuries on the person of the prosecutrix: (i) Linear abrasion with reddish brown scap about 2.5 cm x .1 cm placed vertically over centre of right cheek. (ii) Superficial scratch over right ring finger on ventral aspect of distal phallnx about .8 cm in length. (iii) The prosecutrix had also given the history of pain in the neck. However, no external injury seen. However, soft issue tenderness was present. (iv) The victim had not allowed for breast and local genitalia examination. So examination was planned under anesthesia after consultation with anesthesiologist which was planned for 26.05.2014 in the morning." She has further deposed that on 26.05.2014, the prosecutrix was to be examined by administering anesthesia and the findings were to be confirmed by gynecologist, but as no female gynecologist was available in DDU Hospital, hence the case, after discussion with Senior Medical Superintendent, was referred to KNH. She has deposed that she also advised X-ray as well as dental opinion for ascertaining the age of the prosecutrix. She issued medico legal certificate, which is Ex. PW-26/A. As per her testimony, on 26.05.2014, she again medically examined the prosecutrix. She perused the opinion, Ex. PW-11/A, from KNH and KNH authorities have also sent three unsealed vaginal smear slides and one high vaginal swab from the posterior fornix. She, after taking back, the vaginal slides and smears, handed over the same to the police. This witness, in her opinion, which is based upon the opinion of gynecologist, did not rule out the possibility of sexual assault. The possible duration of injuries were opined to be between 2 to 5 days. Medico legal certificate dated 26.05.2014 is Ex. She, after taking back, the vaginal slides and smears, handed over the same to the police. This witness, in her opinion, which is based upon the opinion of gynecologist, did not rule out the possibility of sexual assault. The possible duration of injuries were opined to be between 2 to 5 days. Medico legal certificate dated 26.05.2014 is Ex. PW-26/B. She has further deposed that injuries No. 1 to 3 could be caused, if a small child is dragged. She, after perusing the report of Radiologist, Dental Surgeon, opined the age of the victim between 8 to 12 years. This witness, after perusing the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, which is Ex. PA, gave her final opinion that sexual intercourse took place with the prosecutrix. PW-26, in her cross-examination, has deposed that as per report, Ex. PA, the grouping of the semens found on the exhibit was not done. 13. Pw-27, Dr. Vivek Sahajpal, Assistant Director DNA, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, deposed that on 30.06.2014 fourteen sealed parcels were received in the laboratory for examination from Biology and Serology Division, State Forensic Science Laboratory, and two more sealed parcels were received for examination in the DNA Division on 08.05.2015. As per the testimony of this witness, from those exhibits DNA profling was carried out and the same was tested positive for presence of semen through biological and serological examination by Biology and Serology Division State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga. Blood samples were subjected to DNA profiling, whereupon he issued report, Ex. PW-25/B, and concluded as under: "I) A mixed DNA profile was obtained from Ext. 2-A (Pajami of prosecutrix) from which two DNA profiling could be identified. One DNA profile matches with the DNA profile obtained from exhibits 2-2 (blood sample of accused on FTA card) , and the other DNA profile matches with the DNA profile obtained from exhibit 1-1 (blood sample of victim) . II) The DNA profile obtained from exhibit 3-B (Vaginal swab victim) matches with the DNA profile obtained from exhibit 1-1 (Blood sample of FTA card of victim) ." He has further deposed that as per his request, Ex. PW-27/A, on 12.03.2015, he requested SHO, Police Station Nerwa for providing fresh blood sample of the accused and the prosecutrix. This witness was cross-examined at length, but nothing favourable to the defence was extracted. 14. PW-27/A, on 12.03.2015, he requested SHO, Police Station Nerwa for providing fresh blood sample of the accused and the prosecutrix. This witness was cross-examined at length, but nothing favourable to the defence was extracted. 14. After comprehensively discussing the medical evidence, it is amplified that sexual intercourse has taken place with the prosecutrix and the DNA profiling leaves no iota of doubt qua the involvement of the accused, as the samples of the victim were tested positive for the presence of semen and also the mixed DNA profile obtained from the pyjami of the prosecutrix was found to be matching with DNA profile of the blood sample of accused as also the prosecutrix. Thus, as per the medical evidence, it is clear that accused has committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. However, medical evidence cannot be made sole basis for convicting the accused. 15. Now, the statements of other prosecution witnesses are to be scrutinized and it is to be seen that medical evidence, which stands fortified with the testimony of the prosecutrix, has lateral support from other evidence or not. PW-5, Shri Lakhi Ram, Panchayat Secretary, deposed that on 04.06.2014, through application, Ex. PW-5/A, the police requested him for issuance of date of birth certificate of the prosecutrix. The date of birth of the prosecutrix, according to pariwar register, is 27.03.2003 and copy of pariwar register is Ex. PW-5/B. The Police also procured a copy of pariwar register, Ex. PW-5/C. He also prepared date of birth certificate of the prosecutrix, Ex. PW-5/D. PW-6, Jai Lal, Teacher, deposed that on 27.05.2014, the police, through application Ex. PW6/A, moved before the Principal of school, requested for issuance of date of birth certificate of the prosecutrix. As per this witness, it was also requested that whether on 24.05.2014 the prosecutrix has attended the school or not. He prepared birth certificate, Ex. PW6/B, as per the records maintained by the school. The date of birth of the prosecutrix is 27.03.2003. As per the school records, on 24.05.2014 the prosecutrix was absent and to this effect he has issued certificate, which is Ex. PW-6/C. He also handed over the copy of admission and withdrawal register qua the prosecutrix, which is Ex. PW-6/D. This witness has further deposed that he has supplied to the police admission form/identification (Ex. PW-6/E) of the prosecutrix. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that certificate, Ex. PW-6/C. He also handed over the copy of admission and withdrawal register qua the prosecutrix, which is Ex. PW-6/D. This witness has further deposed that he has supplied to the police admission form/identification (Ex. PW-6/E) of the prosecutrix. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that certificate, Ex. PW-6/E, was to be filled by the parents at the time of the admission. In certificate, Ex. PW-6/E, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 27.03.2002. In the year 2014 Devinder Shashtri was class teacher of 6th class and he used to maintain the attendance register. PW-7, Padam Singh (uncle of the prosecutrix) , deposed that on 24.05.2014, at about 02:00 p.m., after taking lunch he was on his way back to duty and his nephew, Surat Singh, called him and told to inform the family of the prosecutrix that she is there. So, he telephoned and informed the mother of the prosecutrix. This witness was cross-examined, but nothing favourable could be extracted from him. 16. Pw-16, Kulbhushan, deposed that on 24.04.2014 he alongwith Jai Lal was associated in the investigation by the police. He alongwith the prosecutrix and her father went to the spot of occurrence, wherefrom police took into possession a school bag, pants and a belt. As per this witness, the school bag was handed over to the father of the prosecutrix, whereas belt and pants were put in a cloth parcel, which was sealed with nine seals having impression ''A'' and memo, Ex. PW-16/A was prepared, which was signed by him and Jai Lal. Specimen impression of seal ''A'' was also obtained, which is Ex. PW-16/B. On 31.05.2014 he and Jai Lal were again associated in the investigation and mother of the prosecutrix handed over a shirt and a pajami, which was having blood stains, to the police. The above said clothes were taken into possession and put in a parcel, which was sealed with nine seals having impression ''H''. As per this witness, specimen seal impression of seal ''H'' was also taken into possession, which is Ex. PW-16/C and the seal after its use was handed over to him. The parcel was taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PW-16/D, which bears his signatures and also the signatures of Jai Lal. The parcel of cloth also bears his signatures. As per this witness, specimen seal impression of seal ''H'' was also taken into possession, which is Ex. PW-16/C and the seal after its use was handed over to him. The parcel was taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PW-16/D, which bears his signatures and also the signatures of Jai Lal. The parcel of cloth also bears his signatures. This witness, in his crossexamination, has deposed that on 24.05.2014 he was called by the father of the prosecutrix. The spot of occurrence was in an orchard. 17. Pw-17, Roshani Devi, deposed that on 24.05.2014, Parwati had come to her house seeking some domestic help and around 02:00 p.m. when. Parwati was sitting in veranda and she was inside the room, . Parwati told her that a girl, who is in the field, calling her (Roshani Devi) . Parwati brought her to the house. As per this witness, the said girl was the prosecutrix. She has further deposed that the prosecutrix was wearing a shirt and she has tied a sweater across her waist. She has not worn anything on her legs. In the interregnum, Surat Ram (PW-19) came there and the prosecutrix requested him to inform her family. Surat Ram requested Padam Singh, who was having phone, to inform the family of the prosecutrix. She noticed blood on the person of the prosecutrix, as the prosecutrix was not wearing pants. Subsequently, mother of the prosecutrix came there and in her presence inquired from the prosecutrix about the incident. The prosecutrix divulged that the accused Krishan @ Chuhiya ravished her. This witness gave pajami (Ex. P-6) to the prosecutrix, which she wore. She, in her crossexamination, has deposed that the prosecutrix came to their house around 02:00 p.m. and from the spot of occurrence one could reach within ten minutes. 18. One of the important witnesses is PW-18, mother of the prosecutrix (name withheld) . She has deposed that prosecutrix is about 12 years of age and in the year 2014 she was studying in 5th standard. As per this witness, on 24.05.2014, as usual, the prosecutrix had gone to school and she went to fields for collecting grass. Around 02:00 p.m. her brother-in-law (jeth) , Padam Singh, informed on her mobile phone that prosecutrix is present in the house of Roshani Devi and she is scared. As per this witness, on 24.05.2014, as usual, the prosecutrix had gone to school and she went to fields for collecting grass. Around 02:00 p.m. her brother-in-law (jeth) , Padam Singh, informed on her mobile phone that prosecutrix is present in the house of Roshani Devi and she is scared. When she reached the house of Roshani Devi, she found the prosecutrix scared and she was not wearing pants. As per this witness, the prosecutrix was not having school bag or belt. On inquiry, the prosecutrix disclosed that when she was on her way to school, the accused Krishan @ Chuhiya met and forcibly took her to the orchard of Mehar Singh. The prosecutrix further disclosed to her that accused had put his hand over her mouth and after removing her pants, he ravished her. She was further informed that accused, on hearing someone''s voice, fled away from the spot. This witness has deposed that she telephonically informed her husband. As per this witness, . Roshani Devi, gave a pajami (Ex. P-6) to the prosecutrix. PW-18 has identified belt, Ex. P-2, shirt, Ex. P-5 and pants, Ex. P-3, as of the prosecutrix. Subsequently, police came to their village and her statement, Ex. PW-18/A, was recorded. Again, this witness was also extensively cross-examined, but nothing favourable to the defence came out from her. 19. Pw-19, Surat Singh, deposed that on 24.05.2014, at about 02:00 p.m., when he was present in his house, he noticed the prosecutrix standing near the apple trees. He has further deposed that he had also noticed that the prosecutrix was wearing a white shirt, but she was not wearing anything over her legs. He has deposed that she had tied a school sweater around her waist. As per this witness, the prosecutrix requested him to inform her mother. He did not have the mobile phone, so he requested Padam to inform the mother of the prosecutrix. Parwati brought the prosecutrix to the house. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that he did not inquire from the prosecutrix as to what had happened. He did not notice blood on the person of the prosecutrix. 20. Now, after discussing the medical evidence as also the testimonies of independent witnesses, it would be apt to scrutinize the evidence of official prosecution witnesses. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that he did not inquire from the prosecutrix as to what had happened. He did not notice blood on the person of the prosecutrix. 20. Now, after discussing the medical evidence as also the testimonies of independent witnesses, it would be apt to scrutinize the evidence of official prosecution witnesses. PW-12, Constable Rajnish, deposed that he, on the direction of I.O., took the accused to Civil Hospital, Nerwa, and application to this effect is Ex. PW-8/A. He has further deposed that after the examination of the accused, his medico legal certificate was given to him, which he handed over to MHC, Police Station, Nerwa. PW-13, LHC Suresh Kumar, deposed that on 24.05.2014 he alongwith Station House Officer, Police Station, Nerwa, went to village Himgram, where statement of mother of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. He has further deposed that upon the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix, SHO made an endorsement, which was handed over to him. He took the same to Police Station, Nerwa, whereupon FIR was registered. Thereafter, the case file was handed over to him, which he submitted to the I.O. on the spot at about 09:00 p.m. PW-14, LHC Shamim, has deposed that on 24.05.2014, at about 10:00 p.m., the then SI/SHO deposited with him a sealed parcel, which was sealed with nine seals of impression ''A'' alongwith sample of seal ''A''. He entered the said articles at Sr. No. 149 in register No. 19, abstract whereof is Ex.PW-14/A. He has further deposed that on 25.05.2014, Constable Rajnish deposed a sealed envelop, which was sealed with seal of Medical Officer. The envelop stated to have contained the undergarments of the accused. Constable Rajnish also deposited with him four envelops stated to have contained two small vials having body hair and head hair of the accused. He has further deposed that said vials were sealed with seals of Medical Officer. Constable Rajnish has deposited with him three vials containing pubic hair, blood samples, nails scraping of the accused and the same were also sealed with three seals of Medical Officer. Another vials, which was sealed in a cloth parcel, stated to have contained the semen sample of the accused, was also deposited with him. Constable Rajnish has deposited with him three vials containing pubic hair, blood samples, nails scraping of the accused and the same were also sealed with three seals of Medical Officer. Another vials, which was sealed in a cloth parcel, stated to have contained the semen sample of the accused, was also deposited with him. In addition to the above articles, a sealed envelop, which was addressed to Chemical Examiner, FSL, Junga, was also deposited with him and another envelop, which was duly sealed and addressed to HOD, Department of Pathology, IGMC, Shimla, was also deposited with him. He entered all the articles at Sr. No. 150 in register No. 19, abstract whereof is Ex. PW-14/B. He has further deposed that on 28.05.2014, Lady Constable Meera, deposited with him a sealed envelop, which was sealed with three seals of CMOS and the said envelop contained blood samples, vaginal slides and vaginal swabs alongwith envelop addressed to Chemical Examiner, FSL, Junga and sample of seal of CMOS. As per the testimony of this witness, on 31.05.2014, ASI Kuldeep Singh, deposited with him a sealed parcel, which was sealed with nine seals having impression ''H'' and a sample seal of seal ''H''. He entered the above articles at Sr. No. 152 in register No. 19, abstract whereof is Ex. PW-14/D. He has further deposed that all the above articles were sent, through Constable Pankaj, vide RC No. 27 of 2014 and RC No. 28 of2014, to FSL, Junga and to IGMC Shimla. Copy of RC No. 27 is Ex. PW-14/E and RC No. 28 is Ex. PW-14/F. The case property remained intact under his custody. Constable Pankaj returned RC No. 27 to him, whereas the case property, which was sent to IGMC, vide RC No. 28, was not accepted and the same was deposited in Civil Hospital, Nerwa. He has deposed that receipt of Nerwa Hospital is Ex. PW-14/G and the receipt of FSL is Ex. PW-14/H. He, during the course of investigation, also handed over CIPA certificate, Ex. PW-14/J. Copy of rapat rojnamcha No. 15 is Ex. PW-14/K. 21. Pw-15, Lady Constable Meera, deposed that she brought the prosecutrix to Civil Hospital, Nerwa, wherefrom she was referred to DDU Hospital, Shimla. She was medically examined in DDU, Shimla, and was refered to KNH, Shimla. PW-14/H. He, during the course of investigation, also handed over CIPA certificate, Ex. PW-14/J. Copy of rapat rojnamcha No. 15 is Ex. PW-14/K. 21. Pw-15, Lady Constable Meera, deposed that she brought the prosecutrix to Civil Hospital, Nerwa, wherefrom she was referred to DDU Hospital, Shimla. She was medically examined in DDU, Shimla, and was refered to KNH, Shimla. She has further deposed that the articles, which were handed over to her by the doctors, she deposited the same with MHC, Police Station, Nerwa. PW-20, ASI Kalyan Singh, deposed that on 24.05.2014 SI/SHO Jasbir Singh sent the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix, Ex. PW-18/A, through HHC Suresh, whereupon he got registered FIR, Ex. PW20/A, which bears his signatures. He also made an endorsement, Ex. PW-20/B, qua the registration of the FIR and sent back the case file to the Investigating Officer. PW-21, Constable Pankaj Kumar, deposed that on 03.06.2014 MHC Shamim handed over to him articles, as mentioned in RC No. 27 of 2014, copy whereof is Ex. PW14/E. He has further deposed that on 04.06.2014 he deposited those articles in FSL, Junga, receipt whereof Ex. PW-14/H. The case property remained intact under his custody. On the same day, vide RC No. 28, copy whereof is Ex. PW-14/F, two sealed envelops were given to him, which were not received by HOD, Pathology IGMC, Shimla, so he returned them to MHC, Police Station, Nerwa. However, on the same day, the parcel was again given to him by the MHC, which he, vide receipt Ex. PW-14/G, handed over to Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Nerwa. 22. In the line of official prosecution witnesses, the statement of PW-22, SI Jasbir Singh (Investigating Officer) is valuable in order to link other evidence with the occurrence. He has deposed that on 24.05.2014 he was telephonically informed by one Gian Chand that his daughter has been taken away by a villager. He was also informed that the girl is scared and requested him to come to the village. Upon such information rapat was entered in DDR vide rapat No. 15A, Ex. PW-14/K. He alongwith ASI Kuldeep, LHC Suresh and Driver Madan Lal went to village Himgram and recorded the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix under Section 154 Cr.P.C., which is Ex. PW-18/A. His endorsement on the said statement is Ex. PW-22/A. He has further deposed that Ex. PW-14/K. He alongwith ASI Kuldeep, LHC Suresh and Driver Madan Lal went to village Himgram and recorded the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix under Section 154 Cr.P.C., which is Ex. PW-18/A. His endorsement on the said statement is Ex. PW-22/A. He has further deposed that Ex. PW18/A was sent to Police Station, Nerwa, through LHC Suresh, whereupon FIR, Ex. PW-20/A, was registered and endorsement on the FIR is Ex. PW-20/B. Subsequently, LHC Suresh submitted the case file to him and he alongwith the police personnel, prosecutrix and witnesses went to the spot. He prepared spot map, Ex.PW-22/B and clicked photographs Ex. PW-2/A-1 to Ex. PW-2/A-10 were. The spot was also videographed. He has further deposed that from the spot a white trouser, a school belt and a school bag was also found lying. The trousers and belt were put in a sealed parcel, which was sealed with nine seals having impression ''A'', and were taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PW-16/A, which was signed by Gian Chand and Kulbhushan. The school bag was handed over to the father of the prosecutrix. He has also procured specimen seal impression ''A'', which is Ex. PW-16/B, and the seal after its use was handed over to Kulbhushan. The prosecutrix alongwith her parents were taken to Nerwa and application, Ex. PW-1/A, was moved to Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Nerwa, for medical examination of the prosecutrix. As there was no lady Medical Officer, the prosecutrix was referred to DDU, Shimla, vide endorsement, Ex. PW-1/B. On 25.05.2014 the prosecutrix alongwith her parents and Lady Constable Meera was sent to DDU Shimla for medical examination. He has further deposed that on 25.05.2014 the accused was medically examined at Civil Hospital, Nerwa, and his medico legal certificate is Ex. PW-8/B. As per the testimony of this witness, the case property was taken into possession and entrusted to MHC, Police Station, Nerwa. The accused was arrested and the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He handed over the case file for further investigation to ASI Kuldeep Singh, as he was busy investigating another case. This witness was also cross-examined extensively, however, nothing favourable to the accused could be extracted from him. 23. Pw-23, ASI Kuldeep Singh, partially investigated the matter. He has deposed that on 25.05.2014 SI Jasbir Singh entrusted to him the investigation the case. This witness was also cross-examined extensively, however, nothing favourable to the accused could be extracted from him. 23. Pw-23, ASI Kuldeep Singh, partially investigated the matter. He has deposed that on 25.05.2014 SI Jasbir Singh entrusted to him the investigation the case. On 27.05.2014 the accused identified the place of occurrence qua which memo, Ex. PW23/A, was prepared, which was signed by Paras Ram and Kulbhushan. He has further deposed that upon identification of the spot by the accused, he has prepared spot map, Ex.PW-23/B. He moved application, Ex.PW-6/A, to the Principal of the school, whereupon certificates, Ex.PW-5/B and Ex. PW-6/C, were given to him. He has also procured copy of admission and withdrawal register qua the prosecutrix, which is Ex. PW-6/D and identification form, Ex.PW-6/E. On 28.05.2014 opinion of the doctor was sought and on 30.05.2014 statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On 31.05.2014, he visited the spot and the mother of the prosecutrix handed over to him a shirt and a pajami, which were put in a parcel and the same was sealed by affixing nine seals of impression ''H''. The said parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-16/D, and it was signed by Jai Lal and Kulbhushan. He also procured specimen seal impression of seal ''H'', which is Ex. PW-16/C. Subsequently, through application, Ex. PW5/A, moved to Secretary Grma Panchayat Tikkari, he obtained copies of pariwar register, Ex. PW-5/B and Ex. PW-5/C. Secretary also gave him certificate, Ex. PW-5/D. Again, this witness was cross-examined at length, but nothing favourable to the accused could be elicited from him. 24. The evidence, in the case in hand, as discussed hereinabove, is in three different groups, viz., medical evidence, evidence of non-official prosecution witnesses and the evidence of official prosecution witnesses. After discussing the all three groups of prosecution evidence punctiliously, we find that nothing specific or positive material has come on record, which could justify that the accused has been wrongly convicted by the learned Trial Court after mis-appreciating the evidence. It is a well-settled proposition that in rape cases the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence, but in the present case whole of the prosecution evidence speaks volumes that it was the accused, who perpetrated the crime. It is a well-settled proposition that in rape cases the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence, but in the present case whole of the prosecution evidence speaks volumes that it was the accused, who perpetrated the crime. We cannot overlook that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual assault, as the medical evidence perspicuously demonstrate that she was sexually assaulted, so her statement alone, in conjunction with medical evidence, can form basis for convicting the accused. 25. No doubt, the testimony of a child witness is to be evaluated very carefully and with greater circumspection, as a child is susceptible to be swayed by many factors, however, in the case in hand, the testimony of the prosecutrix went unshaken in her extensive cross-examination. At the cost of repetition, the prosecutrix deposed that in the morning of 24.05.2014, she was on her way to school and was walking alone. When she was walking near the fields of one Mehar, accused prevented her movement towards the school and when she again tried to move he prevented her movement, so she got scared. Thereafter, the accused caught hold of her from her left hand and when she screamed, the accused gagged her mouth with his hand. He dragged her to fields and threatened to kill her, in case she divulges anything to anyone or tries to flee. Accused removed his trousers and also her trousers and laid on her. She felt giddiness and the accused fled away, as it was felt that someone is coming. Admittedly, the prosecutrix could not answer to the Court question as to what had happened when the accused removed her salwar and his trousers, but we cannot overlook that the tendency and inherent bashfulness of the females is to conceal any minor or major sexual aggression and here is the case of a female child, so her testimony cannot be seen with suspicion, as that would amount to adding insult to her injury. The prosecutrix has further deposed that she felt pain in her private part, when she stood up and the blood was oozing out of it, so she hide herself in a pit. The accused again came there and called her. She secretly reached the house of PW-19, Roshani Devi, and found one Parwati, so she called her while standing underneath the said house. The accused again came there and called her. She secretly reached the house of PW-19, Roshani Devi, and found one Parwati, so she called her while standing underneath the said house. As she was afraid, her trousers remained on the spot, so she had tied sweater on her waist. She has categorically deposed that Parwati took her to the house of Roshani Devi and she was given pajama. PW-19, Surat Singh, informed her mother. Now, in the wake of her deposition, there is nothing which necessitates this Court to look for corroboration of her version, as her testimony inspires confidence and is found reliable. However, the version of the prosecutrix stands fully corroborated by PW-17, PW-18 and PW19. 26. Pw-17, Roshani Devi, categorically deposed that on 24.05.2014, one Parwati came to her house seeking domestic help. As per her version, when she was in the room and Parwati was sitting in the veranda, Parwati told her that a girl, who is in the field, is calling her. They brought the girl (prosecutrix) to the house and at that time the prosecutrix was wearing a shirt and she has tied sweater around her waist. This witness has affirmatively deposed that the prosecutrix was not wearing anything on her legs. In the interregnum PW-19, Surat Singh, came there and on the prosecutrix''s request, he requested one Padam Singh, who was having phone, to inform the family of the prosecutrix. So, the family of the prosecutrix was informed. She has further deposed that she noticed blood on the person of the prosecutrix and she gave a pajami (Ex. P-6) to the prosecutrix. 27. Next key witness in this case is PW-18, mother of the prosecutrix, who got her statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. She has deposed that on 24.05.2014 when the prosecutrix left for school, she had gone to fields to collect grass. At about 02:00 p.m. her (jeth) , Padam Singh called her on her mobile and informed that the prosecutrix is present in the house of Roshani Devi and is scared. When she reached the house of Roshani Devi, she found the prosecutrix terrified and she was not wearing trousers. She has categorically deposed that the prosecutrix did not have her school bag and belt. Upon her asking the prosecutrix disclosed that the accused has ravished her by gagging her mouth near the orchard of Mehar Singh. When she reached the house of Roshani Devi, she found the prosecutrix terrified and she was not wearing trousers. She has categorically deposed that the prosecutrix did not have her school bag and belt. Upon her asking the prosecutrix disclosed that the accused has ravished her by gagging her mouth near the orchard of Mehar Singh. She telephonically informed her husband and Smt. Roshani Devi gave a pajami to the prosecutrix. On 31.05.2014, recovery of pajami, Ex. P-6, belt, Ex. P-2, shirt, Ex. P-5 and pants, Ex. P-3, through memo, Ex. PW-16/D, made by the police, stands fully proved. 28. Pw-19, Surat Singh, is also one of the vital prosecution witnesses. He has deposed that on 24.05.2014, at about 02:00 p.m., when he was present in his house he noticed a girl (prosecutrix) standing near the apple trees and she was not wearing anything on her legs. He has further deposed that she had tied a sweater around her waist. The prosecutrix requested him to inform her mother, so he requested Padam to inform the mother of the prosecutrix. Subsequently, Parwati brought the prosecutrix to the house of Roshani Devi. Thus, the testimonies of PW-17, PW-18 and PW-19 clearly and unambiguously prove the sequences of events, when read with the testimony of the prosecutrix, which proves the guilt of the accused conclusively and beyond the scope of reasonable doubt. 29. The veracity and credibility of the version of the prosecutrix is further fortified by the medical evidence. PW-4, Dr. P.L. Gaunta, deposed that on 25.05.2014 the prosecutrix was brought to DDU, Shimla, pursuant to report made by doctors of Civil Hospital, Nerwa. The prosecutrix was medically examined by PW-16, Dr. Aarti Sarin. PW-16, while medically examining the prosecutrix, noticed the injuries, as already discussed, on the person of the prosecutrix. This witness, after seeking gynecological opinion, opinion qua her age and also the forensic opinion, did not rule out the possibility of sexual assault. Thus, the medical opinion also testifies the truthfulness of the prosecution case. 30. In the case in hand it stands established that the prosecutrix, at the time of occurrence was only eleven years of age, so a child of tender age fell prey to lust of the accused. Thus, the medical opinion also testifies the truthfulness of the prosecution case. 30. In the case in hand it stands established that the prosecutrix, at the time of occurrence was only eleven years of age, so a child of tender age fell prey to lust of the accused. The age of the prosecutrix at the time of the occurrence was 11 years and it stands established through the testimonies of PW-18 (mother of the prosecutrix) , PW-5, Lakhi Ram and PW-6 Jai Lal. PW-18, mother of the prosecutrix deposed that the prosecutrix is 12 years of age. As PW-18 deposed in the Court on 25.05.2015 so, the prosecutrix was 12 years of age on that day, meaning thereby on the day of occurrence, she was 11 years of age. PW-5, Lakhi Ram, Secretary Gram Panchayat, issued copy of pariwar register, Ex. PW-5/B, wherein the date of birth of the prosecutrix is recorded as 27.03.2003. Similarly, PW-6, Jai Lal, Teacher, also deposed that the date of birth, as per the record, is 27.03.2003. Even as per the medical evidence, the age of the prosecutrix is between 8 to 12 years. So, the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the occurrence was eleven years and two months. 31. After exhaustively discussing the entire prosecution evidence, we find that the statement of the prosecutrix is cogent, credible and it has grain of truth. The testimony of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and the same is fully substantiated by the medical evidence and DNA report, which is extracted, as under: "A mixed DNA profile was obtained from Ext. 2-A (Pajami of prosecutrix) from which two DNA profiling could be identified. One DNA profile matches with the DNA profile obtained from exhibits 2-2 (blood sample of accused on FTA card) , and the other DNA profile matches with the DNA profile obtained from exhibit 1-1 (blood sample of victim) ." There is not even an iota of evidence on record, which could subtly point out towards the innocence of the accused. The sequence of events stands fully fortified on all fours, through the testimonies of PW-18 (mother of the prosecutrix) , PW-17, Smt. Roshani Devi, and PW-19, Shri Surat Singh. 32. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the only conclusion is that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence to its true and correct perspective and rightly convicted the accused. 32. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the only conclusion is that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence to its true and correct perspective and rightly convicted the accused. We find no reason to reverse the findings rendered by the learned Trial Court. The appeal, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed, as the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused conclusively and beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. 33. In view of the above, the appeal, so also pending application(s) , if any, stand(s) disposed of.