JUDGMENT : A.K. Mishra, J. The conviction of appellant accused U/s.376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence thereof to undergo 7 (seven) years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months by judgment dtd.30.09.2010 in S.T. Case No.67/112 of 2010-07 is assailed in this appeal U/s.383 Cr.P.C. 2. It is stated by learned Amicus Curiae Mr. S. Dash and also by learned Addl. Standing Counsel that accused has already undergone the sentence. 3. Put briefly, the case of the prosecution is that, on 20.3.2006 the victim, a ten years old girl had been to one of his relation's house with her parents to see the folk dance in the marriage ceremony of the daughter of Lepa Tudu. At 5 P.M. she returned alone to take care of goats before dusk. On the way, the accused, an youth of 28 years old, lifted her to river bank, tearing her wearing apparels, attempted to commit rape. The victim screamed. Two persons came to her rescue. Accused fled away. Village meeting was convened twice. Accused did not turn up. On 23.4.2006 F.I.R. (Ext.4) was lodged by the father of the victim. In course of investigation, the wearing apparels, i.e. saree and blouse, were seized vide M.O.I and M.O.II. The under wear and napkin of accused were also seized vide M.O.III and M.O.IV. Accused was medically examined by the doctor (P.W.6) and found to be capable of sexual intercourse. Injuries on left shoulder and left elbow were found. The victim declined to be examined medically, as is evident from the report (Ext.2) of the doctor (P.W.5). After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken U/s.376, 506(II), read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. Trial ensued. 4. In support of its case prosecution examined the victim as P.W.2, her parents as P.W.1 and 4, one seizure witness and two medical officers and investigating officer as P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.7. Defence did not choose to examine anybody and took the plea of denial simplicitor. 5. Learned trial court considered the evidence and found the victim reliable and credible. Her refusal for medical examination did not break the ice as F.I.R. was lodged after two days of which delay was due to village meeting to which the accused did not respond. Defence did not choose to examine anybody and took the plea of denial simplicitor. 5. Learned trial court considered the evidence and found the victim reliable and credible. Her refusal for medical examination did not break the ice as F.I.R. was lodged after two days of which delay was due to village meeting to which the accused did not respond. Minor discrepancies were ignored. While appreciating the evidence, learned trial court observed on the method of proof in paragraph 9 of the judgment which, in my considered opinion, at the outset, was not desirable. Learned trial court acquitted the accused of the charge U/s.506 of the I.P.C. but found him guilty U/s.376, read with Section 511 of the I.P.C. and sentenced in the manner noted above. 6. Learned Amicus Curiae Mr. S. Dash vehemently urged the following points:- (i) The F.I.R. was lodged on 23.4.2006 as against the occurrence of 20.4.2006 and the explanation that it was due to village meeting to which accused did not turn up, is not justified. (ii) The victim as P.W.2 has stated that three witnesses, namely, Basi Murmu, Madan Murmu and Badal Murmu came to the spot hearing her shout but none of them was examined and such non-examination is nothing but to suppress the truth. (iii) The victim refused to be examined medically without assigning any reason. Such conduct was not in consonance with ordinary human nature alleging attempt to rape. 6-(a). Learned Amicus Curiae relied upon a decision in the case of State of Karnataka Vrs. Mapilla P.P. Soopi, 2004 AIR SC 83 in support of his contention that the testimony of victim should be viewed with suspicion in absence of medical examination. In the aforesaid decision the Hon'ble Apex Court analyzed the evidence for offence U/s.376 of the Indian Penal Code and two witnesses who were neighbours of the victim were found to have not supported the prosecution case. The original medical report was not produced. In that context the Hon'ble Supreme Court found the accused not guilty. But the facts and circumstances of the present case are completely different. 7. In the case at hand, the victim P.W.2 narrated the story which is sufficient to attract offence U/s.376 read with Section 511 of the Indian penal Code. The original medical report was not produced. In that context the Hon'ble Supreme Court found the accused not guilty. But the facts and circumstances of the present case are completely different. 7. In the case at hand, the victim P.W.2 narrated the story which is sufficient to attract offence U/s.376 read with Section 511 of the Indian penal Code. She has stated that while she was coming alone to her house, on the way near the chhaka, the accused came from her back side, embraced her and lifted her towards the river. By the side of river, the accused, put her on the ground, then he tore her blouse and saree then squeezed her breasts and then took attempt to commit rape on her. Then she shouted. In her cross-examination she has admitted that the place where the accused put her on the ground was a grassy field. She raised protest since the accused put her on the ground. She also rubbed on the face of accused. He sustained scratch mark on the face. The accused gave teeth bits on her face. She also sustained bleeding injury on her breasts. The area of the spot, the victim's house and the house where the marriage ceremony was going on was within a radius of half a kilometer. The victim had disclosed the incident before her parents who are P.W.1 and P.W.4. The living style of the parties is more attached to their customs and tradition. It was Raja festival time. The dance programme in a marriage ceremony was their tradition. The wearing of saree and blouse on that ceremony by a 10 years old victim cannot be considered as unusual. The victim and her parents have stated that village meeting was convened for two days at the instance of the villagers but the accused did not turn up. The villagers then advised him to go to police. 7-(a). Nothing was proved as to why the victim and her parents were against the accused to frame him in a false case. In absence of any such material, it is difficult to disbelieve the testimony of victim and her parents because of certain minor discrepancies. The same discrepancies assume no importance when the illiterate tradition bound rustic people were examined in the court after three years of incident. The F.I.R. was lodged after two days. In the interregnum, the villagers were holding meetings. The same discrepancies assume no importance when the illiterate tradition bound rustic people were examined in the court after three years of incident. The F.I.R. was lodged after two days. In the interregnum, the villagers were holding meetings. Accused did not respond them. The cause of delay is nothing but reasonable because custom, tradition and societal value are essence of their life. 7-(b). It is not a case of rape but a case of an attempt to commit rape. So after three days of incident if the minor girl declined to be examined medically, no exception can be taken to that conduct. She is wholly reliable witness, her testimony is truthful and can be relied upon. 7-(c). In the decision, Madan Lal Vrs. State of J & K, (1997) 7 SCC 677 their lordships have held that "the difference between preparation and an attempt to commit an offence consists chiefly in the greater degree of determination and what is necessary to prove for an offence of an attempt to commit rape has been committed is that the accused has gone beyond the stage of preparation. If an accused strips a girl naked and then making her flat on the ground undresses himself and then forcibly rubs his erected penis on the private part of the girl but fails to penetrate the same into vagina and on such rubbing ejaculates himself then it is difficult for us to hold that it was a case of merely assault under Section 354 I.P.C. and not an attempt to commit rape under Section 376 read with Section 511 I.P.C." 7-(d). In the case of Sham Singh Vrs. The State of Haryana,2018 SCConline(SC) 1042 their Lordships have held that "Courts shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. Courts should examine broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in statement of prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. Courts should examine broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in statement of prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason, court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in case of an accomplice." In that case, their Lordships, relying on the case of State of Punjab Vrs. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 have held that Courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on veracity of prosecution case or even discrepancies in statement of a prosecutrix should not, unless discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Inherent bashfulness of females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook." 8. On careful reading of the testimony of victim P.W.2 in the backdrop of the situations and surroundings, I do not find any reason to disbelieve her. The explanation for delay in lodging the F.I.R. is acceptable. The overt act by accused as narrated by the victim attracts the offence U/s.376, read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction of the accused appellant is based upon the legal evidence and no fault can be found to that. The sentence awarded is proportionate to the offence committed. Hence no interference in this appeal is warranted. Accordingly the JCRLA stands dismissed. L.C.R. be returned.