JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J: This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 20.01.2014 and order of sentence dated 23.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-III-cum-FTC (CAW), Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No.707 of 2013, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 376(2) (i) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.2000/-. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Trial Court has not appreciated the oral evidence properly which led to the conviction of this appellant. In fact, none of the witnesses are the eye witness of the said occurrence and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Even the mother of the victim is not an eye witness. He further stated that the other witnesses are the hearsay. He also stated that the Investigating Officer has not properly investigated this case and wearing apparels were not sent for FSL Examination. As per him the statement of the child cannot be believed as there are discrepancies in her evidence. From the evidences, it is apparent that the house of the appellant was locked from outside, thus there was no occasion that this appellant would be present inside the house. He lastly stated that all the circumstances, which surfaced during the evidence were not put to the appellant while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., thus the conviction of this appellant is bad, which needs to be set aside. 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the witnesses have clearly stated that the girl was recovered from the house of this appellant and on hearing the cry of the victim girl from the house of this appellant, the people of the village went to his house and recovered the girl. The statement of the girl clearly establishes the fact of sexual assault, which is also corroborated by the medical evidence, thus this appeal needs to be dismissed. 4. Prosecution case as per the written report of one Munna Kachhap is that on 25.4.2013 at 3:00 p.m his youngest daughter- the victim had come to house from Ursuline Convent School and his wife informed him that all the children had gone outside at 4:30 p.m for playing and all the children returned home till 5:30 p.m but her youngest daughter (victim) did not return. On query from other children, she came to know that Samu Sanga @ Kariyappa (appellant) has taken away her to a shop for giving her kurkure (packed snacks). Thereafter they searched her but she was not traced till 7:30 p.m. Then they went to the house of Kariyappa and found that his house was locked from outside but after sometime they heard cry of their daughter. On hearing the cry, people of the locality also rushed to the place of occurrence and his wife also reached there. They found that the appellant was inside the house along with his daughter. The people of the locality broke the lock of the door and saw the girl was undressed. The people of the locality caught the appellant, assaulted him. The informant stated that after alluring the girl by giving kurkure, the accused took her inside his house and tried to commit rape upon her. On the basis of his written report, Lalpur P.S. Case No. 104 of 2013 was registered under Section 376/511 of IPC. 5. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet under Section 376(2)(F) of the Indian Penal Code, upon which the Court took cognizance and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The Court framed charge under Section(s) 376(2)(i) IPC. 6. Prosecution in support of their case has produced twelve witnesses who are as follows:- P.W.-1 Basanti Kachhap, is the mother of the victim girl, who deposed that the occurrence took place on 25.4.2013 when her daughter, aged about 3 ½ years, returned to her house from school with her father and after taking meal she went outside along with other children for playing. When her daughter did not return till 5:30 p.m., this witness went outside to search her and found that all the children were playing. She enquired from them and they disclosed that Kariyappa (accused) has taken away her youngest daughter and she found that his house was locked from outside. She thereafter informed the matter to her neighbour that Kariyappa has taken away her youngest daughter, then people of the locality started searching along with her. In the meantime, she heard cry of her daughter from the house of the appellant. After breaking the lock, the people of the locality entered the house and saw that her daughter was weeping and she was undressed. In the meantime, she heard cry of her daughter from the house of the appellant. After breaking the lock, the people of the locality entered the house and saw that her daughter was weeping and she was undressed. In the meantime, the police reached there and on enquiry, the victim girl disclosed that this appellant committed rape on her. She has further deposed that she saw blood was oozing from her private part. In cross-examination, she remained firm throughout on the point of occurrence. P.W.-2, Shrawan Kumar Mahto, is an independent witness. He deposed that he knew about the occurrence, which took place on 25.4.2013. Samu Sanga was assaulted by the villagers because he raped the victim. In the meantime, the police came and recovered the chappal (Slipper) and undergarment of blue colour of the victim from the house of Samu Sanga and seizure list was prepared. He identified his signature in the seizure list, which has been marked as Ext.-1. P.W.-3, Kelbensia Tirkey, deposed that the occurrence took place on 25.4.2013. She deposed that she saw that the accused was alluring a girl aged about four years. Thereafter, he took her to a nearby shop and purchased one kurkure and gave it to the said girl and took her towards his house. She also deposed that on the same day at 9:00 p.m., she came to know that accused-Kariyappa has committed rape upon the victim. In cross-examination, she remained firm on her statement. P.W.-4, Chandan Lohra, deposed that the occurrence took place on 25.4.2013 when he had gone towards chowk and when he was returning, he heard some hue and cry. He went near the place where he came to know that Kariyappa had committed rape upon his niece. He saw that people of the locality were assaulting the accused. In the meantime, the police came and caught the accused- Kariyappa. He also deposed that the police recovered the undergarments and sandal of the victim. He has identified his signature on the seizure list, which has been marked as Ext.-1/A. From his cross-examination, nothing important could be extracted. P.W.-5, Ramu Munda, is an independent witness, rather he is brother of the appellant. He deposed that the occurrence took place on 25.4.2013. He also deposed that the police recovered the undergarments and sandal of the victim. He has identified his signature on the seizure list, which has been marked as Ext.-1/A. From his cross-examination, nothing important could be extracted. P.W.-5, Ramu Munda, is an independent witness, rather he is brother of the appellant. He deposed that the occurrence took place on 25.4.2013. He came to his house at 5:30 p.m, thereafter he went to his friends' colony, where he came to know that the youngest daughter of Munna Kachhap was missing and she was taken by his brother i.e. this appellant. He further deposed that the victim was searched everywhere but she was not found and lastly they went to the house of Samu Sanga where they found the house locked from outside. They heard the victim crying inside the house. After breaking the lock, they entered the house and recovered the victim girl along with the accused. The people of the locality assaulted the accused. He deposed that the accused has tried to rape the victim. He saw that the victim's undergarments, her sandal and a packet of kurkure were lying there. At that time, the police came and seized the undergarments, kurkure and sandle of the victims. This witness has also been cross-examined, but the defence could not demolish his statement. P.W.-6, Manoj Kumar Pattar, deposed that the occurrence took place on 25.4.2013. He deposed that when he knew that the victim was missing, he went in search of her along with P.W. 7- Karan Oraon. They went towards the house of Kariyappa and saw the house was locked from outside. When they called the name of victim, the victim replied from inside the house. Hearing her voice they broke the lock of the house and entered the house and recovered the victim along with the accused- Kariyappa. The people of the locality came and assaulted the accused. He also remained firm on his statement in cross-examination. P.W.-7, Karan Oraon, has deposed that the occurrence took place on 25.4.2013 at 6-7 p.m when he was walking outside his house, he received a call from his sister who is mother of the victim that victim is traceless. The people of the locality came and assaulted the accused. He also remained firm on his statement in cross-examination. P.W.-7, Karan Oraon, has deposed that the occurrence took place on 25.4.2013 at 6-7 p.m when he was walking outside his house, he received a call from his sister who is mother of the victim that victim is traceless. Thereafter, he came to know from children that one Kariyappa has taken the victim on his lap then they went to the house of Kariyappa and he found his house locked and when he called the name of victim, then the victim replied him saying “Mama”. Thereafter after breaking the lock, they entered into the house of the accused and heard the cry of victim. When he took her in his lap, he saw that she was bleeding. Thereafter the people of the locality assaulted the accused. In the meantime, police came and thereafter they went to police station, where a report of occurrence was lodged. The victim was sent to Sadar Hospital for treatment where she stayed for the whole night. In cross-examination, the defence has not been able to demolish his statement. P.W.-8, Munna Kachhap, is the informant of this case as well as the father of the victim girl. He deposed that on 25.4.2013, he received a call from his house that his youngest daughter is missing. Thereafter taking leave from the employer, he rushed to his house and on the way he also received a call that his youngest daughter was found in the house of Kariyappa thus he directly went there. He saw that there was gathering of people and his wife has taken his youngest daughter in her lap. On enquiry, he came to know that his youngest daughter was taken away by Kariyappa towards his house. The people of the locality went there where they found the house of Kariyappa was locked from outside. After sometime they heard the cry of victim. After breaking the lock, they entered the house and recovered the victim. On enquiry, the victim disclosed to her mother that the accused had pressed her neck and after removing her panty, he committed rape on her. Thereafter, he rushed to the police station along with the people of the locality and lodged this case. He has identified the written report, which has been marked as Ext.-2 (with objection). On enquiry, the victim disclosed to her mother that the accused had pressed her neck and after removing her panty, he committed rape on her. Thereafter, he rushed to the police station along with the people of the locality and lodged this case. He has identified the written report, which has been marked as Ext.-2 (with objection). The police had taken his re-statement. Thereafter the police visited the place of occurrence and recovered the undergarment and sandal of the victim from the house of the accused. In cross-examination, he stated that whatever he knows about the occurrence, was learnt by him from his wife and villagers. P.W.-9, Ganesh Oraon, deposed that on 25.4.2013 in the evening he had gone to Burdman compound to his Sasural where he came to know that all the family members had gone to the village, as the accused Kariyappa has committed rape on her youngest sister then he also went there, where he saw that police came and took the accused to the police station. He further deposed that he also went to the police station. He has identified his writing and signature in written report which has been marked as Ext.-2. P.W.-10 is the victim, aged about 5 years. After satisfaction about the understanding of the victim, the Court recorded her deposition. She has stated before the Court that while she was playing in the field, the accused took her to shop and gave one kurkure and thereafter he took her to his house. She further deposed that the accused removed her panty and committed rape on her and while she was crying the accused started to press her neck. She also deposed that the people of the locality came there and entered the house and recovered her and thereafter her mother had taken her to the hospital. P.W.-11, Sri Honhaga, is the Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that on 25.4.2013 he was posted at Lalpur Police Station and on that very day the informant Munna Kachhap has lodged a written report and after institution of the case he was handed over the charge of investigation. Thereafter, he recorded the re-statement of the informant, in which, he corroborated the contents of the FIR. Thereafter, he proceeded to the place of occurrence. He also recorded the statement of the witnesses and sent the victim to Hospital for medical examination. Thereafter, he recorded the re-statement of the informant, in which, he corroborated the contents of the FIR. Thereafter, he proceeded to the place of occurrence. He also recorded the statement of the witnesses and sent the victim to Hospital for medical examination. He also sent the accused to RIMS for his treatment. He recovered one panty and a pair of sandal during inspection of the house of the accused and accordingly he prepared a seizure list in presence of independent witnesses. He has identified the seizure list, which has been marked as Ext.-1/B. He has also brought the material exhibit, which was opened by the order of the Court. He also seized the cloth of the accused and sealed the same. He brought the said cloth in sealed condition which was opened by the order of the Court. The trouser of accused was stained with blood. He identified the said trouser which has been marked as Material Exhibit-3. He arrested the accused from RIMS. He also exhibited the formal FIR. P.W.-12, Dr. Vibha Rani, has examined the victim, aged about 4-5 years, on 25.4.2013 at 9:19 p.m. On examination, no mark of injury or assault was found on external part of the body. Secondary sex character was not developed. Axillary and public hair absent. Breast not developed. At the time of examination, the victim had not put on inner garments and no stain of foreign body was found on her private part. On P/V examination.- Hymen was found ruptured. There was radish colouration of labia minora and introitus. Fourchette was intact. Vaginal examination was very difficult due to pain. Smear was taken from posterior fornix of vagina with her help of cotton bud and the smear taken was blood stained. The doctor opined that there is definite sign of some sexual assault on the victim. However from the pathological report she did not find any alive or dead spermatozoa. In cross-examination, the doctor has deposed that the injury found in the private parts of the victim cannot be possible by falling. 7. Several documents were also produced and exhibited by the prosecution to prove its case. 8. After closure of evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C and after hearing the parties the trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 376(2) (i) IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid. 9. 7. Several documents were also produced and exhibited by the prosecution to prove its case. 8. After closure of evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C and after hearing the parties the trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 376(2) (i) IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the evidences of this case, I find that when P.W.1 and other villagers were searching the child i.e. victim-girl near the house of this appellant, they heard the cry of the victim-girl from the house of this appellant. They broke the door and went inside the house and they saw the daughter in the clutches of this appellant. P.W.1 (the mother of the victim) stated that all the person, who were present there started assaulting this appellant. She clearly stated that the victim's undergarment was not there when she was recovered and the victim girl also stated that this appellant had removed her under-wear and committed rape upon her. She also stated that she had seen the blood on the private part of the girl. P.W.7 also saw the victim bleeding. 10. P.W.2, had not seen the occurrence but stated that under-wear and slipper of the girl were found in the house of this appellant and the same were seized from the house of this appellant. P.W.4 also supports the recovery of slipper and undergarments of the girl from the house of this appellant. P.W.5 also stated that in his presence, the lock of the door of the house of this appellant was broken and thereafter he and others entered the house of this appellant and they saw that this appellant trying to commit rape upon the girl. Undergarments of the victim-girl were removed and so was the slipper, which were found in the house of this appellant. P.W.6 also stated that the victim-girl was found in the house of this appellant. Thus all the evidences clearly suggests that the victim girl was found in the house of this appellant and her undergarments were removed by this appellant and this appellant committed rape upon her, as the mother of the girl (P.W.3) found injury on her private part and P.W.7 found her bleeding. 11. Thus all the evidences clearly suggests that the victim girl was found in the house of this appellant and her undergarments were removed by this appellant and this appellant committed rape upon her, as the mother of the girl (P.W.3) found injury on her private part and P.W.7 found her bleeding. 11. P.W.3 is the witness, who stated that she had seen this appellant taking away the child with him by giving allurement of providing kurkure (salted snacks). She also stated that she had seen that they were going towards the house of this appellant. Thus from the evidence of this witness, it is clear that the appellant had taken the victim-girl along with him. 12. The next most important witness is P.W.10, who is the victim-girl herself. She clearly stated that she was raped by this appellant in his house. There is no material to disbelieve her. When we see the evidence of the Doctor, we find that the doctor opined that Hymen was ruptured and Vaginal examination was very difficult due to pain. The doctor specifically opined that there is definite sign of some sexual assault on the victim-girl and the report of the doctor was marked as Ext.-4. Thus the medical evidence corroborates with the ocular evidence. There is no material to disbelieve the victim or the other witnesses. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra v. State of M.P., reported in (2015) 4 SCC 491 has held that the evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the appellant. Paragraph 4 of the said judgment reads as under; “4. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the High Court was of the view that it is well settled that the woman who is a victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime. Her evidence cannot be tested with suspicion as that of an accomplice. As a matter of fact her evidence is similar to the evidence of an injured complainant or witness. The testimony of the prosecutrix, if found reliable by itself may be sufficient to convict the culprit and no corroboration of her evidence is necessary. Secondly, in prosecution of rape, the law does not require corroboration. The evidence of the prosecutrix may sustain a conviction. The testimony of the prosecutrix, if found reliable by itself may be sufficient to convict the culprit and no corroboration of her evidence is necessary. Secondly, in prosecution of rape, the law does not require corroboration. The evidence of the prosecutrix may sustain a conviction. It is only by way of abundant caution that the court may look for some corroboration so as to satisfy its conscience and rule out any false accusations. Thus, the High Court was of the view that the trial court had not committed any error in convicting the appellant under Section 376 IPC. The statement of the prosecutrix was reliable. Prompt FIR was lodged by her and no further corroboration of her statement was required.” 14. Thus, I find that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of this appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. I further find that there is no material to differ with the findings of the Trial Court. 15. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment. 16. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is also disposed of.