JUDGMENT : RAKESH KUMAR, J. The sole appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18-02-2013 and 23-02-2013 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No. 195 of 2012 (arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 274 of 2011) by Sri Harendra Nath Tiwary, learned Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Judge’). By judgment dated 18-02-2013, the sole appellant was convicted for commission of offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Judge’) and by order dated 23-02-2013, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-(Fifteen thousand). In case of default in payment of fine, he has been directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Short fact of the case is that on 31-12-2011 at 19.30 hrs. (7:30 P.M.), fardbeyan of Keshav Sharma (P.W.2) was recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police-cum-S.H.O., Chainpur (Bhabhua) namely Rajesh Baranwal at village Diha in the house of the informant. The informant in his fardbeyan disclosed that on the same date i.e. 31-12-2011 in the evening at 4:00 PM, he was in his house and was discussing with his wife namely Bimla Devi (P.W.1) and Jaiprakash Bind (not examined), in the meanwhile, his daughter (victim) aged about 7 years weepingly came. Then the informant saw that private part of his daughter was bleeding and on being asked, she explained that while she was returning after throwing waste, co-villager Sanjay Bind (appellant) forcibly lifted her in his lap and carried her in a dilapidated house and thereafter, he forcibly committed rape with her. After listening this fact, the informant and his wife with co-villager Jaiprakash Bind and other number of villagers on lead being given by his daughter (victim) reached the place i.e. the dilapidated house of appellant-Sanjay Bind, which was in the same village i.e. Diha Chainpur, District – Kaimur. At the place of occurrence, he noticed that blood had fallen. After listening this fact, the informant and his wife with co-villager Jaiprakash Bind and other number of villagers on lead being given by his daughter (victim) reached the place i.e. the dilapidated house of appellant-Sanjay Bind, which was in the same village i.e. Diha Chainpur, District – Kaimur. At the place of occurrence, he noticed that blood had fallen. In the meanwhile, one co-villager Rukhsana Khatoon (P.W.3) aged about 15 years alongwith other villagers arrived there and started saying that at about 3:30 PM, while after cleaning clothes from a pond she was returning, on the same date, she was caught by Sanjay Bind (appellant), however; anyhow she could be freed from his clutches and fled away. The informant claimed that the appellant-Sanjay Bind aged about 25 years had committed rape with his 7 years old daughter and injured her. The fardbeyanwas read over to him, in presence of his wife Bimla Devi (P.W.1) and co-villagers Bijesh Singh (P.W.9), and thereafter, the informant put his signature on the fardbeyan, over which, Bijesh Singh (P.W.9) also put his signature and his wife (P.W.1) put her L.T.I. On the fardbeyan, officer incharge made endorsement and thereafter, a formal F.I.R., vide Chainpur P.S. Case No. 274 of 2011, was registered on 31-12-2011 at 9:30 P.M. under Sections 354, 376 of the I.P.C. against the sole appellant-Sanjay Bind and investigation of the case was entrusted to investigating officer/P.W.8. 3. During investigation, the appellant was arrested and since case was found true, on 18-01-2012 chargesheet was submitted against the appellant under Sections 354, 376 of the I.P.C.. On 08-02-2012 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua took cognizance of the offence and after compliance of provision under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., on 10-04-2012 the case was committed to the court of sessions and it was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 195 of 2012. On 07-05-2012 charge under Sections 376 and 377 of the I.P.C. was framed against the appellant. 4. During the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, altogether 11 witnesses were examined. On 07-05-2012 charge under Sections 376 and 377 of the I.P.C. was framed against the appellant. 4. During the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, altogether 11 witnesses were examined. Out of 11 witnesses, P.W.1 Bimla Devi is the mother of the victim, P.W.2 Keshav Sharma is father of the victim and informant of the case, P.W.3 Rukhsana Begham is co-villager, who was initially apprehended by the appellant, however she escaped, P.W.5 is the victim, whose age was assessed by the learned Trial Judge as 7 years old, P.W.7 Jitendra Kumar Paswan is co-villager and witness to the seizure list relating to seizure of blood soaked salwar of the victim. Besides this, he stated that the victim in his presence had explained regarding the occurrence. P.W.9 Bijesh Singh is another co-villager and witness to the fardbeyan. P.W.10 Raj Mohan Singh Kushwaha is another seizure list witness regarding seizure of cloth of the victim. P.W.11 Sri Pathak Alok Kaushik at the relevant time was Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhabhua and he had recorded statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. P.W.6 Dr. Anil Kumar was one of the member of the Medical Board, which was constituted to ascertain the age of the victim, whereas P.W.7 Dr. Sanghmitra Singh, besides a Member of the Medical Board, on the date of occurrence itself had examined the victim. P.W.8 Ajit Kumar on the date of occurrence i.e. on 31-12-2011 was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police in Chainpur Police Station and after fardbeyan was recorded, investigation was handed over to him, who conducted investigation and submitted chargesheet. 5. After examination of the prosecution evidence, on 02-01-2013 the evidences and circumstances against the appellant were explained to the appellant and his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which, he claimed to be innocent and on behalf of the defence, two witnesses have been examined namely Sushil Bind (D.W.1) and Jaiprakash Bind (D.W.2). D.W.1 and D.W.2 in sum and substance have only stated that in the village with the name of appellant i.e. Sanjay Bind, there were 3-4 other Sanjay Bind. On the basis of evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, which has been assailed by the appellant in the present appeal. 6. D.W.1 and D.W.2 in sum and substance have only stated that in the village with the name of appellant i.e. Sanjay Bind, there were 3-4 other Sanjay Bind. On the basis of evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, which has been assailed by the appellant in the present appeal. 6. Sri Ranjni Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, after placing entire evidence, has argued that the appellant has been victimized due to village politics. He submits that in the village, there were other persons with the name of appellant as Sanjay Bind and without any proper identification, the appellant was apprehended, as if, he had committed rape. It has been highlighted that despite the fact that the investigating officer during investigation had seized cloth of the victim soaked with the blood and seizure list was prepared at the place of occurrence regarding blood soaked soil, purposely the investigating officer had not sent the same for its chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which according to learned counsel for the appellant, creates serious doubt on the prosecution case. 7. Sri Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the investigating officer has violated the statutory provision contained in Section 53-A of the Cr.P.C., which prescribes that when an accused is apprehended for the commission of rape, it is duty on the part of the investigating officer to get the accused medically examined by a Government doctor or any medical expert, however; in this case, nothing has been done by the investigating officer. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the prosecution case comes into the cloud of doubt due to the reason that F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 354 and 376 of the I.P.C., to the reasons best known to the prosecution, charges were framed under Sections 376 and 377 of the I.P.C. and during trial, falsity of the prosecution case has come to fore, since the learned Trial Judge has passed the judgment of acquittal so far as Section 377 of the I.P.C. is concerned. On aforesaid ground, a prayer has been made for extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant. 8. On aforesaid ground, a prayer has been made for extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant. 8. Alternatively, it has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that considering the early age of the appellant i.e. on the date of occurrence, he was aged about 25 years, this Court may take lenient view in reducing the period of sentence. 9. Sri Ajay Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, opposing the appeal, has argued that the case is crystal clear and there is no material to raise doubt on the prosecution case. He submits that the victim, who was a minor girl, was examined by the medical expert and during medical examination, injuries were found on the private part of the victim showing barbaric commission of rape with her. The brutality is evident from the fact of the case that while the victim was raped, she passed stool, which was lacerated in her under-garment. The evidence has come that the appellant on the date of occurrence was adamant to commit rape with either of the one. This is the reason that during evidence, it has come that firstly the appellant had apprehended one Rukhsana Begham (P.W.3), who was aged about 15 years, with a view to commit rape, but anyhow she escaped from the clutches of the appellant and within half an hour from that occurrence, the appellant had lifted a minor girl in his lap and carried her in his dilapidated house and committed rape on her. The victim during evidence has corroborated the fact disclosed by the informant and other witnesses. She further deposed as to how she was raped by the appellant. The victim in dock had also identified the appellant. The victim during evidence has corroborated the fact disclosed by the informant and other witnesses. She further deposed as to how she was raped by the appellant. The victim in dock had also identified the appellant. Besides medical and other evidences, all the witnesses are consistent and there is nothing on record to suggest that there is any doubt in the prosecution case, however; Sri Mishra has not disputed the fact that the investigating officer has not followed the provision contained in Section 53-A of the Cr.P.C., since nothing has been brought on record as to whether after the appellant was arrested, he was got examined by the Medical Officer or not, however he submits that it is true that there is non-compliance of Section 53-A of the Cr.P.C., but in view of specific cogent and admissible evidence and nature of accusation in the present case, this Court may not extend any benefit to the appellant due to non-compliance of Section 53-A of the Cr.P.C. 10. Sri Mishra has highlighted that the learned Trial Judge before examination of the victim has tested her regarding her understanding and giving answer and this was the reason that before recording the evidence of victim/P.W.5, he had asked certain questions to gather as to whether victim was competent to answer question properly or not. Only after being satisfied, she was examined and in her evidence, she has consistently deposed as to how in brutal and barbaric manner, she was raped by the appellant. Accordingly, it has been argued that there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction. On the point of alternative submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant regarding reducing the period of sentence, it has been argued that in such a brutal and barbaric case, this Court may not take any lenient view. 11. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have examined entire evidence available on record and after going through the same, prima-facie, we are of the opinion that the learned Trial Judge has committed no error in passing the judgment of conviction and sentence. However, before proceeding, it would be necessary to discuss evidence, which has been brought on record. The informant in the present case is none else but father of the victim, who was examined as P.W.2. However, before proceeding, it would be necessary to discuss evidence, which has been brought on record. The informant in the present case is none else but father of the victim, who was examined as P.W.2. The informant in his evidence has categorically corroborated the fact, which was disclosed in his fardbeyan. During his evidence, he stated that he put his signature on the fardbeyanin presence of witnesses and he identified his signature on the fardbeyan, which was marked as Ext.1. He is also witness to the seizure list prepared on the seizure of blood soaked salwar of the victim and his signature was marked as Ext. 1/1. This witness was cross-examined, however; nothing could be extracted to create any doubt on his evidence. 12. Similarly, P.W.1 Bimla Devi (mother of the victim) has stated almost same fact, which was stated in the fardbeyan and deposed by P.W.2/informant. In the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it has come that while the victim returned back, her private part was bleeding and the victim disclosed all the fact as to how she was lifted by the appellant and carried to a dilapidated house of the appellant, where rape was committed on her. In the evidence of both P.W.1 and P.W.2, this fact has come that immediately after arrival of the victim, villagers also arrived there. Amongst the villagers, one Rukhsana Begham, who was examined as P.W.3, also arrived and she explained that on the same date at 3:30 P.M., while she was coming after cleaning the cloths from the pond, she was intercepted by the appellant, however, she fled away. The time, when she was attempted by the appellant, was 3:30 P.M. and within half an hour, the rape was committed by the appellant in the present case. This fact was corroborated by Rukhsana Begham (P.W.3). 13. Rukhsana Begham is the co-villager and she disclosed as to how prior to the occurrence of the present case, at 3:30 PM while she was returning, she was caught hold by the appellant, but she anyhow escaped. This witness has also stated that in her presence and in presence of other co-villagers, the victim had explained as to how she was raped by the appellant. 14. This witness has also stated that in her presence and in presence of other co-villagers, the victim had explained as to how she was raped by the appellant. 14. P.W.4 Jitendra Kumar Paswan is another co-villager and he too has stated that after the occurrence he reached the house of the informant, where number of villagers were present and at that very time, he got information regarding commission of rape by the appellant with the victim. P.W.4 is another witness to the production-cum-seizure list of blood soaked salwar of the victim and his signature was identified and marked as Ext. 1/2. 15. P.W.5/victim, who disclosed her age as 7 years before the Trial Judge, was examined on 30th July, 2012. Her evidence was recorded in the chamber of learned Trial Judge and before recording her evidence, since the victim was minor, the learned Trial Judge has tested her by putting certain questions to gather as to whether this witness was competent enough to answer to the court questions and depose in proper way or not and this was the reason that some questions were asked by the Trial Judge, which was properly answered by her. Only then, the evidence of P.W.5 was recorded. In her evidence, P.W.5 deposed that occurrence had taken place about six months back in the evening while she had gone to throw waste and while returning, the appellant lifted her and kept in his lap and carried her in [kakMh (dilapidated house) where he removed her under-garment and by the said under-garment, her mouth was closed and while she was trying to raise alarm, she was also assaulted and the appellant committed barbaric rape with her, which has been explained in paragraph – 1 of the evidence. It would be appropriate to simply quote paragraph – 1 of her evidence, which is as follows:- ^^ik¡p N% eghuk igys dh ?kVuk gS] 'kke dk le; Fkk] eSa xank Qsdusa tk jgh FkhA tc eSa ykSV jgh Fkh rks lat; foUn us eq>s xksnh esa mBk fy;k rFkk [kkaMh esa ys x;kA mlus esjk tka?kh;k fudky fn;k rFkk mlh tka?kh;k ls esjk eqag ck/ak fn;kA blds ckn mlus esjs nksuksa xky ij nkar ls dkV fn;k] eSa fpYykus dh dksf'k'k dj jgh Fkh rks og eq>s eaqg ij ekj jgk FkkA esjs is'kkc okys vax esa mlus viuk is'kkc Hkj fn;k] fQj viuh vaxqyh esjs is'kkc okys vax esa MkykA eSa is'kkc djuk pkg jgh Fkh] ysfdu esjk is'kkc ugha fudy jgk Fkk rFkk esjk iS[kkuk Hkh fudy x;k FkkA blds ckn lat; foUn ogha ij viuk gk¡Fk iSj /kks;k rFkk mlds ckn eq>s NksM+ dj pyk x;kA mlds ckn eSaus bl ?kVuk ds ckjs esa vius ekrk firk ls crk;kA** 16. The victim also identified the appellant in dock and said that this appellant had committed rape with her. In paragraph – 6 of her cross-examination, she explained that at the time of occurrence she was wearing kurta, paijama and undergarment and she had returned her house carrying undergarment. Those clothes were taken by the police. According to evidence of P.W.5/victim, there is nothing to raise any doubt on the prosecution case, rather it shows barbaric act of the appellant. The evidence of victim and other witnesses has been corroborated by the medical evidence. 17. P.W.6 Dr. Anil Kumar on 02-01-2012 was posted at Sadar Hospital, Bhabhua and he was one of the member of the Medical Board, which was constituted as per direction of the Civil Surgeon to examine the victim and on general physical and radiological examination, the Board had determined the age of the victim in between 10 and 12 years. This witness has proved the medical report, which was marked as Ext. 2. 18. P.W.7 Dr. This witness has proved the medical report, which was marked as Ext. 2. 18. P.W.7 Dr. Sanghmitra Singh on 31-12-2011 was posted as Medical Officer in Sadar Hospital, Bhabhua and on the same date at 11:00 PM in the night, she examined the victim and on examination, she noticed following facts:- “On general examination: Secondary sexual character was not developed, dental status was 6+6/7+7, Linear abrasion 1/2” long over left cheek red in colour, her cloth (under garment) smeared with dried and fresh blood, genitalia smeared with blood, external genitalia lacerated 1”x 1/2”x muscle deep red in colour and bleeding. On internal examination: Hymen Membrane ruptured, margin red in colour, vaginal swab taken and sent for pathological examination, report of which showed no spermatozoa found either dead or alive. The pathological report was duly signed and attached with this report. P/V Examination: There was erosion of internal vaginal wall. Vagina admitted tip of the finger. Opinion: The injury found over cheek was simple in nature caused by scratching object which may be by nail. Injury over genitalia was grievous in nature. Both injuries were caused approximately within six hours since the time of examination. The commitment of rape could not be denied.” 19. The injury report was in her pen and signature and it was marked as Ext.3. In cross-examination, she stated that the person examined was aged about 10 to 12 years and she admitted one finger in the vagina of the victim. On the basis of that, she mentioned in the report that vagina admitted tip of finger. The injury she noticed was grievous in nature and same was stiched also. This witness in cross-examination has denied and stated that hymen membrane can not be ruptured by jumping or playing. The evidence of P.W.7 is corroborative of the fact that the victim was raped. 20. P.W.9 Bijesh Singh has identified his signature on the fardbeyan, which was marked as Ext.10. 21. P.W.10 Raj Mohan Singh Kushwaha is another witness to the seizure list relating to blood soaked cloth of the victim and he identified his signature on the seizure list, which has been marked as Ext.11. 22. P.W.11 Sri Pathak Alok Kaushik had recorded statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and he identified the same, which was marked as Ext.12. 23. 22. P.W.11 Sri Pathak Alok Kaushik had recorded statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and he identified the same, which was marked as Ext.12. 23. P.W.8 Ajit Kumar, who is investigating officer of the case, on 31-12-2011 was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police in Chainpur Police Station. He identified the fardbeyan, which was marked as Ext.4, endorsement on the fardbeyanas Ext.5, formal F.I.R. as Ext.6, seizure list of cloth as Ext.7 and seizure list relating to seizure of soil soaked with blood from the place of occurrence, which was marked as Ext.8 and he also seized one packet of Vaseline, recovered from the right pocket of full-pant of appellant and said seizure list was marked as Ext.9. In his evidence, he stated that on getting information regarding the occurrence, he at 6:45 PM reached the village Diha for its verification and reached the house of Keshav Sharma (P.W.2). In his presence, fardbeyanof the informant was recorded by officer incharge of the police station namely Rajesh Baranwal, which was read over to the informant in his presence. He also identified endorsement on the fardbeyan. On the basis of said fardbeyan, formal F.I.R., vide Chainpur P.S. Case No. 274 of 2011, was drawn up. Subsequently, the investigation of the case was entrusted to this witness, who after taking up investigation prepared seizure list in respect of blood soaked cloth of the victim and he also obtained signature of the Keshav Sharma (P.W.2 and informant), who had produced the same. Thereafter, he visited the place of occurrence, which was dilapidated house of Sanjay Bind (appellant), where he found blood on the soil, regarding which, seizure list was prepared by him. In paragraph – 1 itself, he described about the place of occurrence. Thereafter, he reexamined the informant. He examined P.W.1 Bimla Devi, victim (P.W.5) and other witnesses. During investigation, he also apprehended the appellant and at the time of arrest from his right pocket of the full pant, a packet of Vaseline was recovered, for which, a seizure list was prepared. In paragraph – 4 of his evidence, he stated that blood soaked soil, blood soaked salwar and packet of Vaseline were with him in the court. However, he admitted that after arrest of Sanjay Bind (appellant) he had not taken step for his medical examination. In paragraph – 4 of his evidence, he stated that blood soaked soil, blood soaked salwar and packet of Vaseline were with him in the court. However, he admitted that after arrest of Sanjay Bind (appellant) he had not taken step for his medical examination. He also admitted that he had not sent blood soaked soil and blood soaked salwar of the victim to Forensic Science Laboratory. In paragraph – 12 of his cross-examination, he stated that the blood soaked salwar of the victim was produced by P.W.2/Keshav Sharma (father of the victim). 24. After examination of the prosecution evidence, all the circumstances and evidences brought on record against the appellant were explained to him and his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which, he denied the allegation levelled against him. In the case, from defence side, two witnesses namely Sushil Bind and Jai Prakash Bind were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2, however; both of the witnesses only deposed that with the name of Sanjay Bind i.e. name of the appellant, there were 3-4 other Sanjay Bind, however; in cross-examination, D.W.2 has identified his signature on both the seizure lists, which were marked as Ext. 13 and 13/1. 25. On examination of entire evidence, it is evident that prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Of course, it is true that the investigating officer has contravened the provision, as contained in Section 53-A of the Cr.P.C., in view of non-examination of the appellant by a government doctor or medical expert, but on the basis of other cogent evidence, which has been brought on record, merely on the ground of non-examination of the appellant by the medical officer, the judgment of conviction and sentence may not be interfered with. It is a case, in which, a minor girl was barbarically raped by the appellant, which has been supported by oral evidence and corroborated by the medical evidence, as discussed hereinabove, and as such, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction. 26. So far as alternative submission of learned counsel for the appellant regarding reducing sentence is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that in a case of rape with a minor girl, the Court may not take such lenient view. Accordingly, the order of sentence also may not be interfered with. 27. 26. So far as alternative submission of learned counsel for the appellant regarding reducing sentence is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that in a case of rape with a minor girl, the Court may not take such lenient view. Accordingly, the order of sentence also may not be interfered with. 27. The appeal stands dismissed and the judgment of conviction dated 18-02-2013 and order of sentence dated 23-02-2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 195 of 2012 (arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 274 of 2011) by Sri Harendra Nath Tiwary, learned Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua is approved.