JUDGMENT : 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by appellant Dhanraj aggrieved by the order dated 2.8.2020 passed in Sessions Case No. 105/2010 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara by which the appellant was convicted for an offence under section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or, in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 2.2.2010 around 8 or 9 p.m., the appellant went to the house of complainant Savitri (P.W. 2) at village Pathri and took the child prosecutrix with him on the false pretext of giving her biscuits. When the prosecutrix did not return after a while, her mother (complainant herein) started searching for her but could not find her. A short while thereafter the prosecutrix was seen coming from the compound of Patel. She was crying and shivering and the blood was flowing from her private part. Upon the prosecutrix being asked by the complainant and other people who had gathered there, she told them that appellant Dhanraj took her towards the "Barra" and committed rape with her. 3. A report of the incident was made on 3.2.2010 at Police Station Bichua upon which a case was registered against the appellant herein and taken into investigation. Post investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial. The appellant/accused pleaded not guilty. 4. P.W. 1 is the child prosecutrix whose statement was recorded on 28.6.2010 at which point of time the trial court has recorded her apparent age as six years. She has identified the appellant in the doc and has named him. She said that the appellant took her from her home at night to the field belonging to Patel and there he is stated to have disrobed the prosecutrix and committed rape with her and thereafter she came alone from there. She further says that there were lot of people at home and she informed her parents about the incident. In paragraph no. 2 she says that on that night the appellant took her away from home on the false pretext of giving biscuits and that he did not give her the same. She further says that there were lot of people at home and she informed her parents about the incident. In paragraph no. 2 she says that on that night the appellant took her away from home on the false pretext of giving biscuits and that he did not give her the same. She further states that her mother first took her to the police station and then to the hospital where she was seen by the doctor. In her cross-examination, she says that the appellant took her to give biscuits and after that he left her. She also says that she had told her mother that the appellant had taken her and done something to her. She also says that she did not bleed from anywhere. The court put a question to her in a question-and-answer form. The question was whether she experienced pain anywhere on account of the actions of the appellant. To this question, the prosecutrix answers that she was feeling pain in her vagina. In paragraph no. 4 of the cross-examination, she says that when the appellant was taking her she fell down and injured herself on her private part. 5. Savitri (P.W. 2), the mother of the prosecutrix, has also identified the appellant in dock who says is known to her. She says around 8:00 p.m. on the night of the incident the witness and the prosecutrix were at home. At that time, the appellant came there and asked the prosecutrix if she wanted to go along with him to the shop. The witness says that she protested but the same notwithstanding the appellant took the prosecutrix with him on the false pretext of buying biscuits for her. She further says that after an hour when her child did not return, she went towards the shop but she did not find her child there. She came back home and searched in the neighbourhood but in vain. Thereafter, in the night around 9:00 p.m. she says that her daughter came back and she found mud on her clothes and hair. Upon asking the child, she was informed that the appellant had taken her. She also says that blood was oozing from her vagina and the same was smeared on her thighs. Thereafter, in the night around 9:00 p.m. she says that her daughter came back and she found mud on her clothes and hair. Upon asking the child, she was informed that the appellant had taken her. She also says that blood was oozing from her vagina and the same was smeared on her thighs. The prosecutrix is stated to have told her that the appellant took her, removed her clothes and thereafter removed his own clothes also and inserted something in her vaginal passage. Thereafter, she says that she along with her mother and the Kotwar of the village, her brother, and others took the prosecutrix to Police Station Bichua and got registered the first information report (Ex. P1). In her cross-examination, she was asked if she had told the police in her 161 statement about the fact that she had voiced her opposition to the appellant taking the child with him to the shop to which she answered in the affirmative. However, she was confronted with her 161 statement (Ex. D1) in which the said portion is not there. Besides that, nothing significant has been brought out in the cross-examination of Savitri (P.W. 2). 6. Udraj (P.W. 3) is the grandfather of the prosecutrix. He also discloses in his court statement as to how the appellant had taken away the prosecutrix under the false pretext of giving her biscuits and after an hour when she did not return, how Savitri (P.W. 2) and his wife Siyabai searched for the prosecutrix and how she returned home at 9:00 p.m., crying. He says that he saw the blood in her private parts and upon asking her, the prosecutrix informed him that the appellant had taken her towards the field of Patel and there inserted something into her vaginal passage. Thereafter, he says that he along with others went and got the first information report registered. In cross-examination he says that the police never recorded his statement and he is disclosing the factual aspect of the case for the first time before the court. 7. Mrs. Pratibha Shrivastava (P.W. 5) is the doctor. She says that on 3.2.2020 she was posted at the District Hospital, Chhindwara, in the Department of Obstetrics as a specialist. The prosecutrix was brought to her from Police Station Bichua and she carried out the examination. Upon examining the prosecutrix, she found that her overall condition was healthy. 7. Mrs. Pratibha Shrivastava (P.W. 5) is the doctor. She says that on 3.2.2020 she was posted at the District Hospital, Chhindwara, in the Department of Obstetrics as a specialist. The prosecutrix was brought to her from Police Station Bichua and she carried out the examination. Upon examining the prosecutrix, she found that her overall condition was healthy. The blood pressure was normal and there were no external signs of any injury on her body. She, however, states that in her vagina and buttocks there was exudate mixed with blood. She found that the vulva of the prosecutrix was red and swollen. She also states that in her vaginal passage towards the rear hymen and the posterior commissure were torn which was in the anal passage from where fecal material was coming out. She says that advise was given to sedate the prosecutrix and apply stitches to treat the tear which was done by the surgical specialist Dr. Dwivedi and the anesthetist Dr. Sonia. In paragraph no. 3 of her statement, she states that after sedating the prosecutrix, the examination of her private parts revealed that there were third degree tears, which was from the fornix till the rectum on which the stitches were applied. To stop the bleeding in the vaginal passage, medicines were administered to the prosecutrix. In paragraph no. 4 the doctor states that in her opinion the nature of injuries suffered by the prosecutrix were grievous caused by a hard and blunt object with the use of force and that the injuries had taken place 24 hours before her treatment. In her opinion, she states that there was forcible rape with the prosecutrix. The witness states that for advance medical treatment, the prosecutrix was referred to the District Hospital. Nothing significant has been brought out in the cross-examination to shake the testimony of this witness. The MLC prepared by her is Ex. P4. 8. Dr. (Mrs.) Shamim Rehman (P.W. 9) was posted at the District Hospital, Chhindwara as the Medical Officer for Women. She was the first doctor to examine the prosecutrix. She also says that there was exudate mixed with blood coming out from her vagina, which was spread till her rectum. In paragraph no. 6, she says that in her opinion rape was attempted on the prosecutrix. Her MLC is Ex. P5. She was the first doctor to examine the prosecutrix. She also says that there was exudate mixed with blood coming out from her vagina, which was spread till her rectum. In paragraph no. 6, she says that in her opinion rape was attempted on the prosecutrix. Her MLC is Ex. P5. She also records the observation of vaginal tear over the posterior commissure extending up to the anus having a blood mixed discharge. In the opinion she has given that intercourse must have been tried on her and thereafter has referred the prosecutrix for expert opinion to the Gynecologist who is Dr. (Mrs.) Pratibha Shrivastava (P.W. 5) whose statement has already been referred to herein above. 9. From a combined reading of the evidence of the prosecutrix, her mother, her grandfather and the two doctors who had examined her, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant herein who had taken the prosecutrix and committed the ghastly deed with her critically injuring her requiring surgical intervention. The testimonies of the eyewitnesses are consistent and no major contradiction has been brought out by the defence in order to doubt their veracity. 10. As regards the sentence imposed upon the appellant, we are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the aggravating circumstances far outweigh the mitigating circumstances of which there are none. The appellant has committed the crime against a hapless child after betraying the trust placed upon him by the prosecutrix and her family. 11. Under the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere either with the conviction recorded by the learned trial court or the sentence imposed upon the appellant. 12. The appeal is dismissed.