JUDGMENT : ARUN KUMAR RAI, J. Heard Md. Razaullah Ansari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 07.01.2008 and the order of sentence dated 08.01.2008 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner – XXth, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No. 212 of 2005 arising out of Tatisilway P. S. Case No. 11 of 2004, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 978 of 2004 for the offence under Section 376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE to undergo RI for seven years and the period of detention undergone by the appellant as under trial shall be set off towards the period of the sentence. 3. In nutshell, the case of prosecution is based upon the fardbeyan of victim which has been recorded on 06.04.2004 at 09:30 A.M. in Village – V (name concealed) wherein, victim has allegedly stated that she is about 11 years of age and on Friday (02.04.2004) at 16 hours she was grazing her two he-buffaloes towards the West of her house then her villager Amar Lohra (convict/appellant herein) came and victim was taken by him to under constructed house of XX (name concealed) and she was thrown on the ground and he did “Bura kam” for five minutes after removing her undergarment. It is further alleged by victim that she started weeping then he fled away and she came to her house and there was blood on her pant and out of fear of her parent, she took shower and washed her undergarment. In the evening, when she felt pain then she divulged incident to her mother and also told that there was pain in her urinary passage. When her father came to home at 10 P.M. in the night from Usha Martin factory then she and her mother told him about the incident and thereafter her father told the villager about the incident and her father was advised to convene a Panchayati. When Amar Lohra did not turn up in the Panchayati then commotion started and police officials came, before whom she made above stated statement. 4. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, an FIR being Tatisilwai P.S. Case No. 11 of 2004 under Section 376 of IPC has been registered on 06.04.2004. 5. When Amar Lohra did not turn up in the Panchayati then commotion started and police officials came, before whom she made above stated statement. 4. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, an FIR being Tatisilwai P.S. Case No. 11 of 2004 under Section 376 of IPC has been registered on 06.04.2004. 5. After due investigation, charge-sheet being Charge-Sheet No. 44 of 2004 dated 29.10.2004 by showing Amar Lohra (convict/appellant) as an absconder has been filed. After apprehension of accused Amar Lohra, charge under Section 376 of IPC has been framed against him on 16.04.2005 which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in the present case. To conceal the identity and parentage of the victim and her relatives their names are not being disclosed in this Judgment. 7. P.W. – 1 is the mother of the victim. P.W. – 2 is victim’s aunt, P.W. – 3 is the victim herself, whereas P.W. – 4 is the father of the victim and P.W. – 5 Dr. Manju Prasad is the doctor who examined the victim on 06.04.2004 at Sadar Hospital, Ranchi. 8. P.W. – 6 is the cousin brother of the father of the victim and P.W. – 7, Sudama Prasad Singh is the Investigating Officer of the present case. In statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the convict/appellant simply denied the incident and has claimed to be innocent. 9. Apart from above-said oral evidence, prosecution has brought on record fardbeyan of the victim as Exhibit – 1/ 2, signature of victim and her father on the fardbeyan as Exhibit – 1 and Exhibit - 1/1, formal FIR as Exhibit – 3 and Medical Report of the Dr. Manju Prasad as Exhibit – 2. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant started his argument by making submission that this is a case where alleged commission of rape has not been corroborated from medical evidence as P.W. – 5 Dr. Manju Prasad has categorically stated that there was no injury either on the private part or any part of the body of the victim and even no alive or dead spermatozoa have been found. 11. Manju Prasad has categorically stated that there was no injury either on the private part or any part of the body of the victim and even no alive or dead spermatozoa have been found. 11. It is further pointed out, that in the present case FIR is delayed by four days which itself creates serious doubt about the veracity of the fardbeyan of victim and apart from that, there is major contradictions in the oral evidence brought on record on behalf of prosecution. Learned counsel pointed out that, victim, her mother, her father and her aunt categorically stated in their respective testimony that they handed over the blood stained undergarment to the Investigating Officer but this fact does not found corroboration from the mouth of Investigating Officer who has been examined in the present case as P.W. – 7. 12. It has also been agitated while arguing the matter that it is the case of prosecution that victim was thrown by convict/appellant on the ground of the house which was under construction and floor was having bricks and victim has categorically stated that she got scratches on her back but this fact does not found corroboration from the medical evidence available on record because it speaks about no injury on the person of victim. Lastly, it has been pointed out that convict/appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. 13. Per contra, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submitted that there is no material brought on record on behalf of defence which could indicate remotely, about the false implication of convict/appellant and law is settled that even sole testimony of victim who has been ravished by the hand of accused is sufficient to hold the accused guilty in such type of cases. 14. Further, in rebuttal to the submission advanced on behalf of convict/appellant, learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that it is the case of prosecution that as Panchayati was being convened and when the convict/appellant did not turn up then the case has been lodged so delay is well explained in the present case and as far as injury not found on the person of victim in her medical examination is concerned, it is urged that as the victim was examined after four days of the incident so it is well expected that by that time injury and/or dead or alive spermatozoa could not be found. Upon the aforesaid premise, prayer has been made not to interfere with the finding of learned trial court. 15. After perusing material available in trial court record, it transpires that P.W. – 1 is the mother of the victim who has stated in her testimony that on the day of incident victim went to graze he-buffaloes in front of her house, then convict/appellant took victim to under constructed house of XX (name concealed) and committed rape on her person. She also stated that there was blood-stained mark on her pant. 16. P.W.—2 is the aunt who stated in her testimony that on the day of incident after hearing commotion, she visited to the house of victim where she found that victim was crying and incident was narrated by her mother. In cross-examination she has categorically stated that had the convict/appellant come to panchayati and would have tendered his apology then they would not have lodged case against him, because matter was related to respect of a girl. 17. P.W.-4 is the father of victim who has stated that incident is of 02.04.2004 at 04:00 P.M. in the evening and at the time of incident victim was 11 years of age and when he returned from his duty he was apprised that his daughter was ravished by Amar Lohra and on the next date when he went to the place of Amar Lohra to inquire about the incident then he was absconding and when he did not come, then a case was lodged. He has identified his signature on the fardbeyan and same has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. 18. He has also stated that blood-stained pant was provided to the Darogaji and same was seized and paper to this effect was prepared. At para-16 of his cross-examination, he stated that in Panchayat 15/20 persons assembled but XX (name concealed) did not turn up and he had also taken name of few persons who attended the Panchayati. 19. P.W.-5 Dr. Manju Prasad has deposed that she had examined the victim on 06.04.2004 at 12:30 P.M. and she found that breast of the victim was not developed, auxiliary and pubic hair also not present and no injury on her private part or anywhere on her body was found. However, she found old rupture hymen present. 19. P.W.-5 Dr. Manju Prasad has deposed that she had examined the victim on 06.04.2004 at 12:30 P.M. and she found that breast of the victim was not developed, auxiliary and pubic hair also not present and no injury on her private part or anywhere on her body was found. However, she found old rupture hymen present. Vaginal smear was taken and sent for microscoping examination and result revealed that no dead or alive spermatozoa found. She has found radiological age of the victim about 12 to 15 years of the victim and has also found no evidence of sexual intercourse at the time of her examination and she has identified the report which is prepared by her and same has been marked as Exhibit-2. 20. P.W.-6 is the cousin brother of the father of the victim who has stated in his cross-examination that he came to know about the incident from crowd after 3-4 days of incident. 21. P.W.-7 Sudama Prasad Singh is the Investigation Officer of the present case who has stated that on 06.04.2004 at about 09:00 A.M. in the morning, he received information about commission of rape and crowd has assembled in village – V (name concealed), then he registered a Sanha and visited to the place of occurrence where he recorded the fardbeyan of the victim and he has identified the fardbeyan and same has been marked as Exhibit- 1/ 2. He has also identified his writing and signature in formal F.I.R. and complete formal F.I.R. has been marked as Exhibit- 3. Thereafter, he has stated that he took the charge of investigation himself and recorded re-statement of victim and statement of witnesses and also inspected the place of occurrence. He has also stated that incident is of 02.04.2004 at 04:00 P.M. but report was not lodged on that day because villager on account of social disgrace wanted to sort out the matter in Panchayati but as it was not sorted out, report was lodged on 06.04.2004. He has categorically stated that he has not seized cloth of the victim because it was already washed. He has stated that he filed charge-sheet by showing accused as an absconder and he was having no information about the convening of panchayati prior to lodging of report. 22. He has categorically stated that he has not seized cloth of the victim because it was already washed. He has stated that he filed charge-sheet by showing accused as an absconder and he was having no information about the convening of panchayati prior to lodging of report. 22. As far as age of victim is concerned, victim and her parent have stated in their respective testimony that victim was about 11 years of age and doctor has also found her radiological age as 12 to 15 years. The age of the victim which has been brought on record either from the mouth of parent or through medical report (Exhibit - 2) has not been rebutted by accused and, therefore, this Court is having no hesitation to hold that the victim was minor on the day of alleged incident. 23. The victim has been examined as P.W. – 3 in the present case who has stated in her testimony that on the day of incident, she went near the house of XX (name concealed) for grazing of he-buffaloes and convict/appellant came there and she was taken inside the house and he did “Bura Kam” with her. She has also stated that on account of “Bura Kam” blood oozed out from her urinary passage and she started crying then her throat was pressed by convict/appellant and he fled away, thereafter, she went to her house and narrated the entire incident to her mother and when her father returned from Usha Martin then she also apprised the incident to him. 24. In cross-examination, she has stated that convict/appellant was 15-16 years older than her and she was knowing him since two years back and has also stated that while she was being taken by convict/appellant, she cried but no one had come from the house of XX (name concealed). Near the home of XX (name concealed) there are three-four houses and one house is of her and other houses are of other villagers. She had given blood- stained cloth to Darogaji in the police station in presence of her mother. Panchayati was convened at the behest of her father. She has also stated that she had shown the scratch marked on her back and scar on account of pressing of her neck to the Doctor. 25. She had given blood- stained cloth to Darogaji in the police station in presence of her mother. Panchayati was convened at the behest of her father. She has also stated that she had shown the scratch marked on her back and scar on account of pressing of her neck to the Doctor. 25. After going through the evidence, this Court finds that victim has stated that accused did “Bura Kam” with her and even blood starting oozing out from the private part and she has narrated the entire incident to her mother thereafter when his father returned from his duty from Usha Martin then he was also apprised by her as well as her mother. This version of victim is well corroborated from her fardbeyan and as far as giving of blood stained pant of victim to the Investigating Officer is concerned, it is true that all the witnesses including victim has stated that same was handed over to Investigating Officer but Investigating Officer denied the same on account of fact that it was already four days got elapsed and cloth was washed by then. In fardbeyan victim has stated that out of fear of her parent, blood stained pant was washed by her and she had taken a shower. As far as injury on her back which has been stated to be shown to the doctor is concerned, it does not find corroboration from the testimony of Doctor (P.W. – 5) who has deposed that no injury was found on the person of victim either on her private part or other part of her body. 26. In the judgment rendered in the case of Manak Chand Alias Mani v. State of Haryana reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397 , the Apex court has reiterated the settled proposition of law that conviction can be made on the basis of sole testimony of prosecutrix/victim without seeking corroboration of other materials particulars. Relevant para of above judgment reads as under:- “ 7. The evidence of a prosecutrix in a case of rape is of the same value as that of an injured witness. It is again true that conviction can be made on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. Relevant para of above judgment reads as under:- “ 7. The evidence of a prosecutrix in a case of rape is of the same value as that of an injured witness. It is again true that conviction can be made on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. All the same, when a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the courts also have to be extremely careful while examining this sole testimony as cautioned in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 : “If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.” 8. This was reiterated by this Court in Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 92 : “It is true that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring confidence in the mind of the court. If the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix.” 27. Also, in Mohd. Iqbal v. State of Jharkhand reported in (2013) 14 SCC 481 , it has been held that conviction can be based on sole testimony of the prosecutrix/victim and her statement does not require to be corroborated by the statements of other witnesses. Relevant para of the judgment read as under:- “17. There is no prohibition in law to convict the accused of rape on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix and the law does not require that her statement be corroborated by the statements of other witnesses. 18. Relevant para of the judgment read as under:- “17. There is no prohibition in law to convict the accused of rape on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix and the law does not require that her statement be corroborated by the statements of other witnesses. 18. In Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [ (2012) 7 SCC 171 : AIR 2012 SC 2281 ] this Court has observed that even if a woman is of easy virtues or used to sexual intercourse, it cannot be a licence for any person to commit rape and it further held : (SCC p. 180, paras 30-31) “30. … conviction can be based on sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided it lends assurance of her testimony. However, in case the court has reason not to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may look for corroboration. In case the evidence is read in its totality and the story projected by the prosecutrix is found to be improbable, the prosecutrix's case becomes liable to be rejected. 31. The court must act with sensitivity and appreciate the evidence in totality of the background of the entire case and not in the isolation. Even if the prosecutrix is of easy virtues/unchaste woman that itself cannot be a determinative factor and the court is required to adjudicate whether the accused committed rape on the victim on the occasion complained of.” (See also Vijay v. State of M.P. [ (2010) 8 SCC 191 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 639]) 28. As far as, the contention agitated by the convict/appellant that no injury either on the private part or any part of the body of the victim was found in the medical evidence, cannot be made only reason to negate the testimony of the prosecutrix/victim. The Apex court in the recent case of Lok Mal v. State of U.P. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 516 has affirmed the conviction under section 376 of IPC and held that absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim is not always fatal to the case of prosecution. Relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under – “11. Merely because in the medical evidence, there are no major injury marks, this cannot a be a reason to discard the otherwise reliable evidence of the prosecutrix. Relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under – “11. Merely because in the medical evidence, there are no major injury marks, this cannot a be a reason to discard the otherwise reliable evidence of the prosecutrix. It is not necessary that in each and every case where rape is alleged there has to be an injury to the private parts of the victim and it depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. We reiterate that absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim is not always fatal to the case of the prosecution. According to the version of the prosecutrix, the accused overpowered her and pushed her to bed in spite of her resistance and gagged her mouth using a piece of cloth. Thus, considering this very aspect, it is possible that there were no major injury marks.……..” 29. As far as plea of false implication is concerned, it appears to be improbable to this Court on account of fact that there is no plausible material brought during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or in statement of accused/convict under Section 313 Cr.P.C., because only one fact which has been brought on record on behalf of defence while cross-examining the victim, by way of suggestion is that the land on which he- buffaloes were being grazed by victim belongs to convict/appellant and he forbade the victim. It is very difficult for this Court to accept the above said submission of defence on account of fact that when victim/victim’s family was interested to implicate the appellant in false case then why they had waited for four days and panchayati was convened at the behest of the father of the victim but reason only best known to the convict/appellant he did not turn up in that Panchayati. It is required to be noted that common prudence would suggest that if the victim side wanted to implicate convict/appellant falsely in the present case, then they were having very good opportunity to lodge an F.I.R. on the same day i.e. 02.4.2004 or even immediately on the next day but father of the victim chosen to convene Panchayati and when convict/appellant didn’t turn up then present case was got lodged. 30. 30. This Court also finds that there is no material on record to indicate that defence has denied the convening of panchayati by the victim side and non-appearance of convict/appellant in the said panchayati. Investigating Officer has categorically stated in his testimony that charge-sheet has been filed in the present case by showing accused absconder. The conduct of accused in non-participation/non-appearance before the panchayati and his absconding after the incident is also relevant under Section 8 of the EVIDENCE ACT . 31. Considering the social strata of the victim and overall evidence available on record, especially when the victim was medically examined after four days of incident, it can be well inferred that victim has of course exaggerated/improved certain facts qua giving of undergarments to I.O. and injury on her back and scar on her neck but it cannot shake the foundation of case of prosecution by disbelieving the testimony of victim and other witnesses and that too when reason for false implication is completely lacking/unavailable in the present case and also conduct of convict/appellant. Even Doctor has stated that at the time of examination (after elapsed of four days), she did not find any evidence of sexual intercourse but old rupture hymen present. 32. In view of aforesaid discussion, the contradiction as pointed out on behalf of defence, this Court feels that those contradictions are not vital or material in nature which could make the case of prosecution improbable rather the version of victim and her parents and thereafter conduct of the accused makes the case of prosecution probable and therefore this Court does not find any reason to raise eyebrow in believing the testimony of victim. 33. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the finding of learned trial court, as a result of which, this appeal is dismissed. As the appellant is in custody, no further order is required. 34. Let the trial court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.