JUDGMENT D. Dash, J. - This appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Baripada in S.T. Case No.15/152 of 2003 arising out of G.R. Case No.180 of 1996 of the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Baripada. The petitioner having faced the trial for commission of offence under section 376(2) (g)/366/34 of the IPC has been found guilty for the offence under section 366/376 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. 2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on the preceding night of Saral Puja, when the victim (p.w.6) and her sister were sitting on the verandah of the house of one Kandra Majhi to witness the festival, around mid-night hour, the appellant as also two others (since acquitted) forcibly abducted her and took her near the black berry tree standing at a distance. It is further stated that this accused then forcibly committed sexual intercourse upon the victim. It is also alleged that when p.w.6 escaped from the clutch of this accused and started running away, other two accused persons (since acquitted) having chased, failed in their attempt because of the timely intervention of the victim's father. 3. The incident being reported at the local police station, the FIR was registered and the investigation commenced. Finally, the investigating officer, on completion of the investigation when submitted the charge sheet, the case being committed to the Court of Sessions, the accused faced the trial. The plea of the accused is that of complete denial and false implication. 4. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, has examined as many as seven witnesses including the victim and her father as p.w.6 and 7 respectively as also the doctors, p.w.4 and 5, who had examined her and the radiologist, p.w.3, who had conducted the ossification test. Being called upon, the accused has not tendered any evidence in his defence. 5. Being called upon, the accused has not tendered any evidence in his defence. 5. The trial court, having formulated the points for determination as regards the role of the present appellant as alleged by the prosecution in committing rape upon p.w.6, a minor, in furtherance of the common intention with two others, on analysis of evidence, has found this accused alone to be guilty of commission of offence under section 366/376 of the IPC. 6. Heard Smt. Jena, learned counsel, who has been appointed as Amicus Curie and Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Standing Counsel. I have also gone through the judgment of the trial court. 7. The star witness for the prosecution is p.w.6, the victim. It is her evidence that during the mid-night hour, when she was sitting with her sisters on the verandah of the house of Kandra Majhi, this accused and two others suddenly appeared and forcibly carried her through the cultivable field to the nearby black berry tree where this accused fulfilled his sexual lust and desire having the intercourse with the victim. 8. It is further stated that since there was beating of drums resulting noise pollution in the area, although she had raised her voice and shouted, the same could not attract others' attention. It is her further evidence that other two accused persons when had attempted to commit rape on her, she managed to escape and run away and at that situation due to the timely intervention of her father, that attempt of other two accused person got foiled. She has stated her age to be 15 years. The prosecution has also proved the marks of violence on her private part and also on buttock. The presence of semen of this accused has also been shown through evidence. 9. Despite searching cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit the version of p.w.6 in any manner and no such reason also surfaces to say that she, a village rustic girl, of such tender age, has gone to falsely implicate the accused and that to when the defence has not even given any such suggestion. It is thus seen that the evidence of p.w.6 is clear, cogent and trustworthy as also it receives due corroboration, meriting acceptance to fasten the guilt upon the accused. 10. It is thus seen that the evidence of p.w.6 is clear, cogent and trustworthy as also it receives due corroboration, meriting acceptance to fasten the guilt upon the accused. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, this Court finds no such infirmity with the finding of the learned trial court in recording the conviction against the accused. The accused having been convicted for the offence under section 366 and 376 IPC, the sentence as imposed is found to be just and proper calling for no interference. In the result, the CRLA fails and is hereby dismissed.