JUDGMENT 1. On the last date of hearing, this Court had passed the following order:- “Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was juvenile at the time of his conviction and was sent to the juvenile (sic) (observation) home, and as per his information, the appellant was (sic) already absconded from the said home. In view of the same, counsel appearing for the respondent is also directed to verify the aforesaid information and apprise this Court within a week’s time. Let the matter be listed on 11.9.2024.” 2. Today, Ms. Mridula Sen, learned Counsel for the State has confirmed that the appellant has already absconded from the Observation home on 13.11.2019, along with 7 other such juveniles, who were also lodged in the same home and till date he is not traceable. 3. Be that as itmay, the matter is heard finally. 4. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellantunder section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgement dated 8.5.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.168/2018 by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore (M.P.) whereby finding the appellant guilty, the learned Judge of the trial Court has convicted him as under:- Conviction Sentence Section Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment in lieu of Fine 376(2)(i)(k) IPC 10 years rigorous imprisonment Rs.500/- - 5(m)(i)/6 POCSO Act, 2012 10 years rigorous imprisonment Rs.500/- - 5. It is also held by the trial Court that after attaining the age of 21 years, appellant should be sent to prison. 6. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that an FIR Ex.P/1 was lodged by the mother of the victim on 29.12.2017, at around 9 O’ clock in the night under section 376(2)(i)(k) of IPC and section 5(m)(i)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, informing that she is residing with her husband and two daughters, aged 6 and 4 years, and when she was alone in her house and was preparing food in the night, at that time the son of her landlord, appellant Rishabh came to her house and asked her younger daughter to come with him,and after taking her in his lap, took her out of the house. After sometime she heard her daughter who was crying, and when she went upstairs, she found that her daughter was lying unconscious on the bed and the appellant was standing beside her, and when she asked him as to what he has done, he ran away from the spot. She took her daughter in her house and found that she was profusely bleeding from her private parts and after applying cotton to her, she came to the police station to lodge the report. On such FIR, the investigation ensued, and the chargesheet was filed, and the learned Judge of the trial Court,after recording the evidence has convicted the appellant as aforesaid and being aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred. 7. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case as there was a dispute going on between the complainant and the landlord relating to the rent, as the landlord wanted to increase the rent and the landlord was also demanding separate amount for light and water. It is also submitted that the age of the victim has also not been proved as no document regarding her age has been filed on record. 8. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out looking to the evidence available on record. 9. Heard. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, it is found that the date of incident is 29.12.2017, whereas the date of birth of the victim is stated to be 26.3.2014. Thus, she was around 4 years old at the time of the incident, and although no document has been filed in support of her age. However, the deposition of PW-5 Dr. Monika Verma would reveal that the victim was 4 years old and had also suffered various injuries on her private part. This Court has no reason to question the opinion of the doctor that the victim was 4 years old only as, admittedly, she was almost like a toddler, and cannot be argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove her age to be less than 18 years. 10. So far as the injuries suffered by the victim are concerned, PW-5 Dr. 10. So far as the injuries suffered by the victim are concerned, PW-5 Dr. Monika Verma has described the same in the following manner:- ^^ijh{k.k esa eSaus ik;k fd ihfM+rk d¢ xqIrkax uhyk iM+s gq, Fks v©j mld¢ vanj cka;h lkÃM d¢ iqV~Bs ij 4 bUVw 4 ls-eh- dk uhyk iM+k gqvk FkkA mldk gk;eu QVk gqvk FkkA xqIrkax ij ,d ls-eh- jkÃM lkÃM v©j 1-25 ls-eh- ysV lkÃM ij p¨V Fkh v©j dV yxk gqvk FkkA ;¨fu ekxZ ij v©j mld¢ vanj dh eSd¨tk Òh lwth gqà FkhA iqV~B¨a d¨ p©M+k djus ij cgqr lkjh p¨V¨a v©j dV d¢ fu'kku Fks isjh,uy ,fj;k esa cgqr T;knk dV v©j lwtu Òh FkhA t¨ dV isfj,uy v©j ostkÃuy ,fj;k d¢ chp esa Fks muesa CyhfMax g¨ jgh FkhA ,uy fLihVj ij p¨V Fkh v©j ftlls esjk rkRi;Z ml fgLls dh eklisf'k;ka f'kfFky g¨ x;h FkÈA esjs }kjk nh xà fji¨VZ çn'kZ ih 5 gSA ftld¢ lh ls lh Òkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSaA çn'kZ ih 5 dh fji¨VZ ij esjs gLrk{kj d¢ lkFk&lkFk f'k'kq j¨x ltZu MkW- v'k¨d yM~ढk d¢ gLrk{kj gSaA ftUg¨aus esjs lkFk v¨-Vh- esa ihfM+rk dk ijh{k.k fd;k FkkA MkW- yM~ढk d¢ Mh ls Mh Òkx ij gLrk{kj gSaA English translation of the same:- There were bruises on the vagina of the victimwhich had turned bluish; On the left side of her buttock there was 4x4 cm bruise; Her hymen was ruptured; There were injuries and cut on her private part 1cm right side and 1.25cm on the left side. There was swelling on her vaginal wall and inside vaginal mucosa. On widening the buttocks there were many injuries and cut marks. There were many cuts and swelling in the perianal area. The cuts between the perianal and vaginal area were bleeding.There was an injury on the anal sphincter and due to which, the muscles of that area had become numb/loose.” 11. PW-5 Dr. Monika Verma has also stated that the victim was kept in the labour room of the Hospital for around two days as she was in extreme pain, and she had also taken the history from her mother, who had informed that she was subjected to rape by the present appellant, who happens to be the son of her landlord.Thus, there is no denying the fact that the victim was brutally raped. Shehas also been crossexamined that the victim has suffered such injuries, if she falls on a wooden log, to which she has admitted, but has also stated that a fall injury would not have such pattern of injuries, which the victim has suffered. 12. Whereas, PW-4 Dr. Amarnath Yadav, who has examined the appellant, has also stated that the appellant’s secondary sexual characteristic were fully developed as also his pubic hair and there was no smegma on his glans. 13. FSL report is also available on record, which is Ex.P/21 in which it has been found that, although the slides of the victim had no human spermatozoa, however, on the slide of the appellant human spermatozoa has been found. 14. On perusal of the deposition of the complainant PW-1, it would reveal that she has supported the case of the prosecution and has clearly made specific allegation against the appellant only, and in defence she has been suggested that the victim has suffered injuries only because of falling on the ground to which she has denied. Other witness PW-6 Pushpa Oswal, who is the other tenant of the landlord, has also supported the case of the prosecution, as she happens to be the first one to reach on the spot. She has also deposed that she sawthat the victim was bleeding when her mother brought her from the room of the appellant. 15. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered opinion that in such facts and circumstances of the case, there was no reason for the mother of the victim, who herself had reached on the spot soon after the incident where she found the appellant standing beside her daughter, who was already bleeding, to lodge a false case against the appellant and to save the real culprit.The appellant has been rightly convicted as aforesaid. 16. Accordingly, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgement, and the appeal sans merits, is hereby dismissed. 17. The appellant is at large, let perpetual warrants be issued against him and he be arrested to suffer the remaining part of his sentence. P.S.: ABOUT ONE MORE NIRBHAYA. 18. 16. Accordingly, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgement, and the appeal sans merits, is hereby dismissed. 17. The appellant is at large, let perpetual warrants be issued against him and he be arrested to suffer the remaining part of his sentence. P.S.: ABOUT ONE MORE NIRBHAYA. 18. As a parting note, this Court is once again at pains to observe that juveniles in this country are being treated rather tooleniently, and that the Legislature,to the utter misfortune of the victims of such crimes, has still not learnt any lessons from the horrors of Nirbhaya, reported as (2017) 6 SCC 1 (Mukesh v. State NCT of Delhi). Looking to the overwhelming medical evidence available in the present case, it does not taken an expert to see as to how demonic the appellant’s conduct waswhile he was juvenile, and his mindset can also be gathered from the fact that he has also absconded from the observation home, and presently is at large, probably lurking in some dark corner of the street, for yet another prey, and there is nobody to stop him. And, although such voices are being raised time and again by the Constitutional Courts of this country, but to the utter dismayof the victims, they have not been able to make any impact on the legislature even after a decade of Nirbhaya (supra)which took place in the year 2012. 19. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Law Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi (India). 20. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.