JUDGMENT : G.S. AHLUWALIA, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 27-4-2015 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, Camp Kurwai, District Vidisha in Special Sessions Trial No. 179 of 2014 by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the following offences:- 1 Under Section 376 of IPC No Separate sentence has been awarded 2 Under Section 4 of POCSO Act 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 2000 with default imprisonment 2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 9-11-2004, the complainant Shabir Shah lodged a report, that after doing his labour job, when he came back to his house, he found that his children were crying. His wife informed that the prosecutrix, and his sons Majid and Shahid had gone towards pond for having a bath. The appellant came there and took the prosecutrix towards grave yard on the pretext of giving Rs. 10 and inserted his finger in the private part of the prosecutrix and did Bura Kam. As a result of which bleeding has started from the private part of the prosecutrix. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was lodged in Crime No. 146/2014 for offence under Sections 363, 376 of I.P.C. read with Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (In short POCSO Act). The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Spot map was prepared. The appellant was arrested. He was got medically examined. The cloths were seized. After completing the investigation, the police filed charge Sheet for offence under Sections 363, 376(2)(i) of I.P.C. and under Section 4 of POCSO Act. 3. The Trial Court by order dated 19-1-2015 framed charges under Sections 363 and 376 of I.P.C. and under Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined Prosecutrix (PW-1), Sabir Shah (PW-2), Dr. P.K. Jain (PW-3), Shayra bi (PW-4), Kallu (PW-5), Vishwanath Singh Rajput (PW-6), Bakir Shah (PW-7), Majid (PW-8), Rohit Sahu (PW-9), Kalabai (PW-10), Arvind Dubey (PW-11), Dr. Mamta Pardesi (PW-12), Dhir Singh (PW-13), Usha Maravi (PW-14), and Yogendra Singh Parihar (PW-15). 5. The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. 6. P.K. Jain (PW-3), Shayra bi (PW-4), Kallu (PW-5), Vishwanath Singh Rajput (PW-6), Bakir Shah (PW-7), Majid (PW-8), Rohit Sahu (PW-9), Kalabai (PW-10), Arvind Dubey (PW-11), Dr. Mamta Pardesi (PW-12), Dhir Singh (PW-13), Usha Maravi (PW-14), and Yogendra Singh Parihar (PW-15). 5. The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. 6. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment and sentence, acquitted the appellant for offence under Section 363 of I.P.C. and convicted for offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and under Section 4 of POCSO Act. 7. Challenging the judgment and sentence, it is submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the prosecution has failed to prove that the prosecutrix was minor, there are major contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and the appellant has been falsely implicated. 8. Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecutrix is aged about 8 years and her ocular evidence is supported by medical evidence. 9. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 10. Dr. Mamta Pardesi (PW-12) has medically examined the prosecutrix and had found following injuries on her body: 1. Secondary Sexual Characters are not developed. 2. Hymen membrane ruptured. 3. Lacerated injury 3 x 1/2 x 1/4 cm with bleeding on anterior vaginal wall caused by hard and blunt object. Vagina was admitting one finger with difficulty. There was a possibility of sexual intercourse. Two vaginal slides, swab, one black pajama were sealed. For D.N.A. test the prosecutrix was referred to Bhopal, which is Ex.P.13 The MLC report is Ex.P.12. 11. In cross examination, this witness has admitted that the injury could be caused by corn stalk. She further stated that she had not given a specific opinion about rape. She further admitted that hymen can rupture while playing also. (It appears from un-exhibited documents, the prosecutrix remained admitted in District Hospital Vidisha from 10-11-2014 to 15-11-2014 and tear of vaginal wall was repaired by a gynecologist. But for the reasons best known to the prosecution, these documents have not been proved. Similarly, the vaginal slide, vaginal swab and pajama of prosecutrix as well as the blood sample, semen slide of appellant were sent for DNA test, however, it appears that the DNA test report was not received.) 12. But for the reasons best known to the prosecution, these documents have not been proved. Similarly, the vaginal slide, vaginal swab and pajama of prosecutrix as well as the blood sample, semen slide of appellant were sent for DNA test, however, it appears that the DNA test report was not received.) 12. The FSL report, Ex.P.17 indicates, that human sperms were found on vaginal slide and vaginal swab of the prosecutrix. 13. Thus, the presence of injuries, rupture of hymen and presence of human sperms, clearly establishes that the prosecutrix was subjected to rape. 14. The prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that She is five sisters and three brothers. She is the student of Class III. The appellant had taken her to a place near graveyard. The appellant had teared her underwear and committed rape on her. While fleeing away, he had also extended a threat that in case, if she narrates the incident to any body, then he would kill her. Thereafter, she lodged the report, and was taken to hospital. There was bleeding from her private part. In cross examination, this witness has stated that her parents had taken her for lodging FIR. At the time of incident, her younger sister Shajia, Samreen and her brother Shahid were with her. She had purchased corn from the appellant for Rs. 20/-. Rs. 20/- were given by her father as the corn were sold at her house. She denied the suggestion that as Rs. 20/- was not given to the appellant, therefore, some dispute took place. She further admitted that she was having a child in her lap. However, she denied the suggestion, that because of fall of child from her lap, she sustained injury by corn stalk. She further denied that the appellant had not committed rape on her. 15. Sabir Shah (PW-2) has stated that when he came back to his house, he found that children were crying and he was told that rape has been committed on the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix had informed him that she has been raped by the appellant. In cross examination, this witness has admitted that the incident did not take place in his presence. 16. Shayra Bi (PW-4) is the mother of the prosecutrix. She has stated that she had gone to pond for washing cloths. At about 5-5:30 P.M. She was coming back. She heard the screams of the prosecutrix. In cross examination, this witness has admitted that the incident did not take place in his presence. 16. Shayra Bi (PW-4) is the mother of the prosecutrix. She has stated that she had gone to pond for washing cloths. At about 5-5:30 P.M. She was coming back. She heard the screams of the prosecutrix. One boy Kallu was also taking bath in the pond. He was called by this witness. They saw that the prosecutrix and her younger daughter were crying and the prosecutrix was stained with blood. The prosecutrix informed that the appellant has raped her. She saw that the appellant was running away. Thereafter, they came back. After her husband came back, they went to lodge the F.I.R. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. She was referred to Vidisha, where the prosecutrix remained hospitalized for 7 days. In cross examination, this witness also admitted that the incident of rape, did not take place in her presence. She further denied that any dispute on the question of non-payment of Rs. 20/- for the corn had taken place with the appellant. She further stated that she had heard the screams from a distance of 20-25 steps. No body else was there at that time. She further denied that the prosecutrix had suffered injury due to corn stalk. 17. Kallu (PW-5) has also supported the prosecution story and has stated that he was washing cloths at the pond. He heard the screams. The mother of the prosecutrix called her. Thereafter, they went towards graveyard and saw the prosecutrix in blood stained condition. The appellant was going. Thereafter, they brought the prosecutrix to her house and then he went away. In cross examination, this witness also admitted that no incident had taken place in his presence. 18. Vishwanath Singh Rajput (PW-6) has proved the date of birth of the prosecutrix. He has stated that he is working on the post of Head Master in Govt. Satellite School, Idgah, Pathari. The date of birth as per the School record is 12-7-2006. The school record is Ex.P.3 and its photo copy is Ex.P.3C. In cross examination, this witness has stated that he had recorded the date of birth on the basis of the information given by the father as well as on the basis of the certificate of Aanganwadi. The date of birth as per the School record is 12-7-2006. The school record is Ex.P.3 and its photo copy is Ex.P.3C. In cross examination, this witness has stated that he had recorded the date of birth on the basis of the information given by the father as well as on the basis of the certificate of Aanganwadi. However, admitted that in the school record, there is no mention of certificate of Aanganwadi. 19. Bakir Shah (PW-7) is the uncle of the prosecutrix and has also supported the prosecution case. He has admitted his signatures on Spot map Ex.P.4, P.5 and Memorandum Ex.P.6 and arrest memo Ex.P.7. 20. Majid (PW-8) is aged about 10 years and is the brother of the prosecutrix. He has stated that he along with prosecutrix, Shahid, Samreen were going. The appellant came there and asked this witness to go away and thereafter, took the prosecutrix. Later on the prosecutrix informed him that one person has caused injury by blade. In cross examination, this witness has stated that he was not informed by the prosecutrix about rape. 21. Rohit Sahu (PW-9) has stated that he had brought one sealed underwear and sealed slide of the appellant as well as seal specimen from the hospital which was seized by Y.S. Parmar vide seizure memo Ex.P.8. On 12-11-2014 had brought sealed kurti, slide of the prosecutrix and seal specimen, which were seized by Dhiraj Singh Pawar vide seizure memo Ex.P.9. 22. Kalabai (PW-10) had brought sealed cloths, slide, one sealed bottle as well as seal specimen from Basoda which were seized vide seizure meme Ex.P.10. 23. Arvind Dubey (PW-11) had brought blood sample of the appellant in sealed condition from Distt. Hospital Vidisha which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P.11. 24. Dhir Singh (PW-13) had seized sealed cloths and vaginal slide vide seizure memo Ex.P.9. 25. Usha Maravi (PW-14) had recorded the statements of the prosecutrix. 26. Yogendra Singh Parmar (PW-15) had investigated the matter and has proved F.S.L. Report as Ex.P.17. 27. In the present case, the F.I.R. Ex.P.1 was lodged within a period of 3 hours. In the F.I.R. it is specifically mentioned that the appellant has raped the prosecutrix. In the MLC report Ex.P.12, the hymen was found ruptured and lacerated injury was found on vaginal wall. Shayra bi (PW-4) has specifically stated that the prosecutrix remained hospitalized for 7 days in Vidisha. In the F.I.R. it is specifically mentioned that the appellant has raped the prosecutrix. In the MLC report Ex.P.12, the hymen was found ruptured and lacerated injury was found on vaginal wall. Shayra bi (PW-4) has specifically stated that the prosecutrix remained hospitalized for 7 days in Vidisha. In the FSL report, Ex.P.17, human sperms were found. The defence has given a suggestion that the prosecutrix had sustained injury because of corn stalk, which was denied. Further, the presence of human sperms clearly rule out the possibility of sustaining injury by corn stalk. 28. Thus, it is clear that the ocular evidence of the prosecutrix finds full corroboration from medical evidence as well as from the corroborative evidence of Shyara Bi (PW-4) and Kallu (PW-5) to whom the incident was narrated immediately. Even these witnesses had seen the appellant running away from the spot. 29. It is well established principle of law that where the evidence of the prosecutrix is found to be reliable, then the court should not look for any further corroboration, as it would add further to her injury. However, in the present case, not only the ocular evidence of the prosecutrix is supported by medical as well as F.S.L. Report, but she immediately narrated the incident to her mother Shyara Bi (PW-4) and Kallu (PW-5). Thus, it is held that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed rape on the prosecutrix. 30. Although the police had filed the charge sheet under Section 376(2)(i) of I.P.C. but the Trial Court framed charge under Section 376 of I.P.C. only. Whenever, a charge is framed, it is expected that the Trial Court must frame the specific charge. By framing charge under Section 376 of I.P.C. it cannot be said that a specific charge under Section 376(2)(i) of I.P.C. was framed. 31. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 of I.P.C. and under Section 4 of POCSO Act is hereby affirmed. 32. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the appellant has committed rape on a small girl aged about 8 years. If the minor girls are not secured in the society, then it raises a very alarming situation. Therefore, no leniency can be shown to the appellant on the question of sentence. 33. 32. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the appellant has committed rape on a small girl aged about 8 years. If the minor girls are not secured in the society, then it raises a very alarming situation. Therefore, no leniency can be shown to the appellant on the question of sentence. 33. Hence, the Rigorous imprisonment of 10 years awarded by the Trial Court for offence under Section 4 of POCSO Act is hereby affirmed. 34. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence dated 27-4-2015 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, Camp Kurwai, Distt. Vidisha in Special Sessions Trial No. 179 of 2014 is hereby affirmed. 35. The appellant is in jail. He shall undergo the remaining jail sentence. 36. The appeal fails and is hereby Dismissed.