JUDGMENT Swapna Joshi, J. - This Appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2007 delivered by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana in Sessions Trial No.89/1998 convicting the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the "accused" ) for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months. 2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case can be narrated as under : The prosecutrix as well as the accused are the residents of Mehunaraja, Tq.Deulgaonraja, Dist. Buldana. The prosecutrix who was aged about 14 years old, was residing with her mother PW4-Saundabai and younger brother. On the date of incident i.e. 15.05.1998, the prosecutrix along with one Gayabai proceeded to the field in order to collect the firewood. She worked along with Ashabai, Kausabai and Gayabai in the field upto 1.00 pm, and they all returned back to the village. However, PW4-Saundabai, the mother of the prosecutrix again sent the prosecutrix to the field in order to collect firewood. This time the prosecutrix alone went to the field and started collecting the firewood and while the prosecutrix was collecting the firewood, the accused came and offered help, however, the prosecutrix declined the same. Thereafter, the accused caught hold of her hands, made her and lie down, gagged her mouth, lifted her petticoat, removed her knicker and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. The accused thereafter threatened the prosecutrix with dire consequences. The accused then fled away. The prosecutrix went home weeping and she narrated the incident to her mother who, in turn, narrated the said incident to PW5-Sudhakar Jadhav, Police Patil; so also the Sarpanch of the village-Mr.Madhukar Jadhav (not examined) and other relatives. Thereafter, on the next day, the prosecutrix proceeded to the Police Station with her mother and lodged the report (Exh.34). 3. Pw8-Psi Haridas Harkare recorded the complaint of the prosecutrix and on the basis of it he registered the offence vide Crime No.33/1998. PW8-Haridas Harkare proceeded to the place of the incident and recorded the spot panchnama (Exh.47). He seized the pieces of bangles lying on the spot under the same panchnama. PW8 then took charge of the clothes of the victim. PW8 recorded the statements of the witnesses. PW8-Haridas Harkare proceeded to the place of the incident and recorded the spot panchnama (Exh.47). He seized the pieces of bangles lying on the spot under the same panchnama. PW8 then took charge of the clothes of the victim. PW8 recorded the statements of the witnesses. The clothes of the accused were taken charge vide Exh.48 on 16.5.1998. The accused was arrested on 17.5.1998. The victim as well as the accused were sent for medical examination to Civil Hospital at Budlana. The medical certificates of the victim as well as the accused were taken charge by the Police vide Exhs. 41 and 42 respectively. All the seized articles were sent to the CA office for its analysis and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of JMFC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After recording the evidence and hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused, as aforesaid. 4. The prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses. The defence of the accused was of total denial. I have heard Mr. A.A. Naik, learned Advocate for the accused and Mr. I.J. Damle, learned APP for the respondent-State. With their able assistance I have gone through the record and proceedings of the case. 5. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the learned trial Judge has not assessed the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspective and has erroneously convicted the accused. He submitted that even though there are glaring discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, still the accused was convicted, based on the said evidence. He submitted that the evidence of the victim itself shows that she had lodged the complaint, as per the version of her maternal uncle (not real). Her evidence further shows that the money was to be extracted from the accused to the tune of Rs 25,000/- and as the said settlement did not take place, the prosecutrix lodged the complaint against the accused as per say of her maternal uncle. He further submitted that even the testimony of the prosecutrix shows that her mother PW4-Saundabai said to her maternal uncle not to do such false things as her daughter will be defamed. He emphatically submitted that the testimony of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence at all and, therefore, her testimony could not be relied upon. He further submitted that even the testimony of the prosecutrix shows that her mother PW4-Saundabai said to her maternal uncle not to do such false things as her daughter will be defamed. He emphatically submitted that the testimony of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence at all and, therefore, her testimony could not be relied upon. He further submitted that the evidence of the Medical Officer shows that he had examined the prosecutrix on 16.5.1998 however the Medical certificate reflects the date as 18.5.1998. The learned counsel for the accused further pointed out that the testimony of PW7-Dr. Ganesh Rathod, Medical officer, nowhere indicates that he was attached to any Government Medical Hospital and furthermore the certificate also does not indicate in any manner that it was issued by any Government Medical Officer since it was not in appropriate format. He further pointed out that the medical certificate of the victim does not indicate any history with regard to the incident and for what purpose she was brought to the hospital and as such, the prosecution has failed to establish any link with regard to the incident and the injury caused to the prosecutrix. The learned Advocate submitted that although the accused was arrested on 17.5.1998, as per the testimony of the Investigating officer PW8, his medical certificate shows the date as 16.5.1998. Lastly, the learned Advocate submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is under the shadow of doubt and, in view thereof, prays that the impugned judgment be set aside. 6. Per contra, Mr. I.J. Damle, learned APP supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the evidence was properly assessed by the trial Court and there are no material discrepancies as such in the testimony of the witnesses which go to the root of the prosecution case and the accused herein has been rightly convicted by the trial Court. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of both sides the evidence of the witnesses is to be scrutinized carefully, more particularly, the evidence of PW3-prosecutrix, PW4-Saundabai mother of the victim, PW7-Dr.Ganesh Rathod, the Medical Officer and PW8- Haridas Harkare, the Investigating Officer. 8. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of both sides the evidence of the witnesses is to be scrutinized carefully, more particularly, the evidence of PW3-prosecutrix, PW4-Saundabai mother of the victim, PW7-Dr.Ganesh Rathod, the Medical Officer and PW8- Haridas Harkare, the Investigating Officer. 8. So far as the age of the victim is concerned, the testimony of PW4 shows that she was aged about 17 years old on the date of recording of her evidence i.e. on 21.2.2001; the evidence of PW4-Saundabai shows that at the time of the incident her daughter was aged about 14 years, whereas the testimony of PW7-Dr. Rathod shows on radiological test, between 15 to 20 years old. There is no separate report in respect of the ossification test of the prosecutrix. Even considering the testimony of PW7 that her age was 15 to 20 years old, it makes amply clear that the prosecutrix was not below the age of 16-years at the time of incident. 9. The evidence of PW3-prosecutrix shows that on the day of the incident she had gone to the field of one Gayabai along with one Kausabai and her niece Usha. Upto 2.00 pm, the prosecutrix was in the field. The other ladies returned home whereas the prosecutrix went to her own field and was collecting sticks. When she was about to bring the bundle of sticks to her house, at that time, the accused appeared and said that he would help her in preparing the bundle of sticks, however, the prosecutrix refused the help, saying that she can do it on her own. PW3 contended that the accused then caught hold of her hands, fell her down, sat on her person and pressed her neck, as a result of which she sustained scratches on her neck by the nails of accused. She stated that the accused then lifted her petticoat, lowered her knicker and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. According to the prosecutrix, the accused did the said act thrice. He then took one stick in his own hand and threatened her that if she would cry he would kill her. According to PW3, her bangles were broken during the course of the incident. The prosecutrix then returned home and the accused too went away. She disclosed the incident to her mother. Her petticoat was stained with semen. He then took one stick in his own hand and threatened her that if she would cry he would kill her. According to PW3, her bangles were broken during the course of the incident. The prosecutrix then returned home and the accused too went away. She disclosed the incident to her mother. Her petticoat was stained with semen. PW4 then narrated the incident to the Police Patil, Sarpanch, uncle and one Vishnu Chate. They all gathered in her house. On that day, they did not proceed to the Police Station as it was evening hours. On the next day, the prosecutrix along with her mother and one Vishnu Chate went to Deulgaonraja Police Station and lodged her complaint (Exh.34). According to the prosecutrix, the field of the accused was adjoining to her field and his house was at the back side of her house. 10. The cross-examination of the prosecutrix indicates that one Ramesh Chate (not examined) is her so called maternal uncle and he said that he will extract money from the accused as he was possessing 10 to 12 acres of land. It has come on record that Ramesh used to take any matter from the village upto the Police Station. No doubt, PW3 admitted in her cross-examination that Ramesh Chate said that he will extract Rs.25,000/- from the accused. PW3 further stated that as the matter could not be settled amicably between the parties, Ramesh Chate took her to the Police Station. She contended that Ramesh had a dinner with them during the night and for a long time he deliberated with her mother over the matter. Ramesh said that he would benefit himself as well as her mother. Pertinently, PW3 deposed that her mother (PW4) said to Ramesh not to do such false things as her daughter would be defamed but Ramesh did not listen to her. She contended that on the next day, Ramesh expended over travel to Deulgaonraja and the report came to be lodged. PW3 however stated that the report was given by her as stated by Ramesh Chate mama. 11. Her testimony further shows that Ramesh said to the mother of the prosecutrix that he would benefit himself as well as her mother. However her mother said not to do any false things otherwise her daughter would be defamed. PW3 however stated that the report was given by her as stated by Ramesh Chate mama. 11. Her testimony further shows that Ramesh said to the mother of the prosecutrix that he would benefit himself as well as her mother. However her mother said not to do any false things otherwise her daughter would be defamed. The said version of PW3 indicates that the mother of PW3 asked Ramesh Chate not to extract money from the accused for the reason that he raped her daughter. Her testimony also shows that Ramesh Chate indicated PW3 as to what report was to be lodged and accordingly the report was lodged levelling the allegations of rape against the accused. 12. Further cross-examination of the witness also shows that the prosecutrix was taken to the doctor, namely, Shivaji from her caste, no doubt, the medical certificate of the said doctor is not placed on record. However, for the faults committed by the Investigating agency, the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be doubted as the medical certificate of prosecutrix issued by the Doctor who examined her after lodging of the complaint, shows injuries on her private parts and injury on neck shows her resistance. 13. The deposition of PW4- Saundabai, the mother of the prosecutrix depicts that at about 4.00 pm, the prosecutrix returned from the field and narrated that the accused committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. PW3 also told her that the accused pressed her mouth and her neck as a result which she received injuries. PW4 then went to the house of the Sarpanch and also to the Police Patil and one Vishnu Chate. On the next day, they proceeded to the Police Station and the complaint was lodged. In the cross-examination, some improvements were pointed out in the testimony of PW4 to the effect that accused removed her petticoat and thrice the accused committed sexual intercourse with her, so also the accused pressed her mouth and there were nail scratches on her neck and the prosecutrix narrated the incident to one Satyabhama. However, to my mind, all these improvements do not go to the root of the case and they all are the details of the incident. 14. However, to my mind, all these improvements do not go to the root of the case and they all are the details of the incident. 14. The cross-examination of PW4 shows that on the next day, she narrated the incident to the Police Patil, who recorded her complaint and obtained her thumb impression and she had taken that report to the Police Station. PW4 denied that she had lodged a false report as per the say of the Ramesh Chate and for extracting money from the father of the accused they had lodged a false report against him. 15. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, the testimony of PW7-Dr.Ganesh Rathod, who is the medical officer shows that on 16.5.1998 at about 9.10 pm, he examined the prosecutrix. Upon examination, he found that her hymen was ruptured and on touching, it was bleeding. There were multiple abrasions on her perineal regions and over her neck. According to the medical officer, sexual intercourse was committed with prosecutrix one or two days before. The Medical Officer opined that the abrasions on the perineal region as well as neck of the girl are possible due to forceful intercourse. According to the Medical Officer he has examined the prosecutrix on 16.5.1998. No doubt, the medical certificate was issued on 18.5.1998. 16. The clothes of the victim were taken charge by the police on 16.5.1998. The CA report (Exh.32) shows bloodstains on the petticoat, shirt and the knicker of the prosecutrix. 17. The learned Advocate for the the accused canvassed that the evidence of PW3 shows that report was written by Police Patil (PW5) and the thumb impression of PW 3 was obtained on it on the day of the incident itself, however, the said report has not been placed on record by the prosecution. Significantly, it is the case of PW5 that the case of assault was reported to him, so also the evidence of Satyabhama was not recorded who had examined the private part of the prosecutrix inasmuch as she would have thrown light on the aspect whether she had seen any injury on the private part of the victim. Even the Medical Officer who had examined the prosecutrix on the day of incident itself has not been examined by the prosecution. 18. Although the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate appear to be attractive those are not convincing. Even the Medical Officer who had examined the prosecutrix on the day of incident itself has not been examined by the prosecution. 18. Although the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate appear to be attractive those are not convincing. In this context, it can be stated that only because the report allegedly recorded by the Police Patil is not placed on record, the testimony of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside, which is otherwise found to be trustworthy. So also there is no delay in lodging the report in the Police Station. As regards the non-examination of Satyabhama, in the absence of her evidence, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown away; similarly, the non-examination of the Medical Officer who examined the prosecutrix first in point of time is not fatal to the case of the prosecution inasmuch as the police has referred the prosecutrix to the Doctor for her medical examination. 19. Thus, the testimony of PW3 corroborates with the testimony of PW4 on all material aspects. No doubt, her testimony shows that her so called maternal uncle Ramesh Chate tried to interfere in the matter. It appears that considering that the prosecutrix and her mother were alone in the house, and the father of the prosecutrix had gone to Mumbai, and both were rustic ladies, Ramesh Chate, who was not the real maternal uncle of the PW3- proecutrix tried to extract the money from the accused and also tried to convince the mother of the prosecutrix not to proceed with the matter. It is worthwhile to note that despite of all these facts, the mother of the prosecutrix PW4 was bent upon to lodge the complaint against the accused and therefore the complaint came to be lodged by the prosecutrix on the very next day. It was explained by PW4 that there was no mode of conveyance available in the evening and therefore they did not proceed to the Police Station to lodge the complaint. The suggestion with regard to the "false case" appears to be in respect of non-acceptance of the amount from the maternal uncle and it does not appear that the prosecutrix and her mother pre-planned to lodge a false complaint against the accused. If the prosecutrix would have been a girl of easy virtue, she would not have prosecuted her complaint. The suggestion with regard to the "false case" appears to be in respect of non-acceptance of the amount from the maternal uncle and it does not appear that the prosecutrix and her mother pre-planned to lodge a false complaint against the accused. If the prosecutrix would have been a girl of easy virtue, she would not have prosecuted her complaint. In normal circumstances, it is a common knowledge that in this tradition-bound society, a girl would not lodge a false complaint of rape against anyone by putting her reputation and the reputation of the family at stake. 20. So far as the non-examination of Satyabahama is concerned, it does not affect the case of the prosecution as the testimony of PW3 and PW4 shows that Satyabhama had examined the private part of the prosecutrix and advised her to lodge the complaint against the accused. The said fact indicates that Satyabhama had noticed the injury on the private part of the prosecutrix and therefore she suggested to lodge the complaint against the accused. Moreover, medical evidence corroborates with the ocular testimony of the relevant witnesses. The injuries clearly indicate the resistance of the prosecutrix to the heinous act of the accused. Thus, the evidence on record shows involvement of the present accused. 21. In this context, it would advantageous to go through the guidelines issued by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab .vs. Gurmit Singh and others, (1996) 2 SCC 384 , as follows : "Where there is some acceptable material on the record to show that the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse, no such inference like the victim being a girl of "loose moral character" is permissible to be drawn from that circumstance alone. Even if the prosecutrix, in a given case, has been promiscuous in her sexual behaviour earlier, she has a right to refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse to anyone and everyone because she is not a vulnerable object or prey for being sexually assaulted by anyone and everyone. No stigma, like the one as cast in the present case should be cast against such a witness by the courts, for after all it is the accused and not the victim of sex crime who is on trial in the court. In paragraph 8 the Hon''ble apex Court has held as under :- "8. No stigma, like the one as cast in the present case should be cast against such a witness by the courts, for after all it is the accused and not the victim of sex crime who is on trial in the court. In paragraph 8 the Hon''ble apex Court has held as under :- "8. .......The courts cannot overlook the fact that in sexual offences delay in the lodging of the FIR can be due to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to the police and complain about the incident which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of her family. It is only after giving it a cool thought that a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged." 22. In State of Maharashtra .vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550 , time and again, it is held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that : "A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of case and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence." As regards the concealment of the offence, it is further held that : "A girl, in a tradition-bound non-permissive society in India, would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect upon her chastity had occurred, being conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down by the society." 23. In case of State of H.P. v. Sanjay Kumar alias Sunny, (2017) 3 MhLJ(Cri) 68 (S.C.) , the Hon''ble apex Court has held in paragraph 31 as under :- "31. By now it is well settled that the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the Courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict the accused. No doubt, her testimony has to inspire confidence. Seeking corroboration to a statement before relying upon the same as a rule, in such cases, would literally amount to adding insult to injury. The deposition of the prosecutrix has, thus, to be taken as a whole. Needless to reiterate that the victim of rape is not an accomplice and her evidence can be acted upon without corroboration. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness does. If the Court finds it difficult to accept her version, it may seek corroboration from some evidence which lends assurance to her version. Needless to reiterate that the victim of rape is not an accomplice and her evidence can be acted upon without corroboration. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness does. If the Court finds it difficult to accept her version, it may seek corroboration from some evidence which lends assurance to her version. To insist on corroboration, except in the rarest of rare cases, is to equate one who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her claim of rape will not be believed unless it is corroborate in material particulars, as in the case of an accomplice to crime. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The plea about lack of corroboration has no substance." 24. In case of Aman Kumar and another v. State of Haryana, (2004) 4 SCC 379 , the Hon''ble Apex Court has held as under:- "It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. She stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional." 25. In case of discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, in Jugendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 6 SCC 297 , the Hon''ble apex Court in paragraphs 41, 42, 43 and 49 has held as under :- "41. In State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, (1985) 1 SCC 505 this Court has observed (SCC p. 331, para 15) that in case of "[m]inor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole". 42. 42. In Rammi v. State of M.P., 199 8 SCC 649 , this Curt has held as follows :(SCC p. 656, para 24) "24.When an eyewitness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non-discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness were so incompatible with the credibility of the version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny." 43. In Appabhai v. State of Gujarat,1988 Supp1 SCC 24 this Court has ruled thus :(SCC pp.246-47, para 13). "13. ... The court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witlessness altogether if they were otherwise trustworthy. 49. Rape or an attempt to rape is a crime not against an individual but a crime which destroys the basic equilibrium of the social atmosphere. The consequential death is more horrendous. It is to be kept in mind that an offence against the body of a woman lowers her dignity and mars her reputation. 49. Rape or an attempt to rape is a crime not against an individual but a crime which destroys the basic equilibrium of the social atmosphere. The consequential death is more horrendous. It is to be kept in mind that an offence against the body of a woman lowers her dignity and mars her reputation. It is said that one''s physical frame is his or her temple. No one has any right of encroachment. " 26. The overall assessment of the evidence of the prosecution proves the guilt of the accused. There is no mistaken identity as such. There is no animosity between the accused and the prosecutrix so that she would foist a false case of rape against him, putting her reputation at stake. The testimony of the prosecutrix is cogent, consistent and trustworthy, supported by the medical evidence. In view thereof, it is held that the trial court has rightly convicted the accused. The judgment does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. Hence the order:- ORDER i) Criminal Appeal No.339/2007 is dismissed. ii) The conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana in Sessions Trial No. 89/1998 convicting the appellant/accused under section 376 of the IPC with fine amount, is hereby maintained. iii) The appellant/accused shall surrender to his bail bond to undergo the remaining sentence, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of this order.