ORDER : 1. The petitioner (original accused) challenges the judgment and order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 818 of 2021, whereby the High Court upheld the judgment dated 23.02.2021 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge–VI–cum–Special Judge, POCSO Act, Begusarai in POCSO Case No. 44 of 2018 and dismissed the criminal appeal. The petitioner Shambhu Yadav was charged under Section 376 (3) and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. The Ld. Additional Sessions Judge–VI– cum–Special Judge upon appreciation of the evidence arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully established its case against the accused, and accordingly, recorded the order of conviction and awarded sentence of life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/-for the offence under Section 376 (3) of IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, the accused has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of six months. 2. As per the case of prosecution, on 04.06.2018 at about 04:00 PM, the informant Lalita Devi seated with her one-and-a-half-year-old daughter in the courtyard of her house and had gone for attending the natures call. Upon hearing her daughter crying, the informant immediately rushed back and found that the accused was indulged in an act of sexually assaulting the minor daughter. She immediately pulled the accused by grabbing his hair from behind and shouted loudly. The accused immediately fled away from the spot. The informant picked up her minor daughter in her lap and found that the blood was oozing out of her private parts. 3. The informant, along with the villagers took the minor daughter to the Baliya Hospital for treatment where the doctor attached to the Baliya Hospital referred her to Sadar Hospital, Begusarai. Thus, it was the case of informant that the accused Shambhu Yadav committed rape on her minor daughter and the information in the form of written application was submitted to the Baliya Police Station. On receipt of the information, the First Information Report came to be lodged bearing Case No. 149/2018 under Section 376 IPC and Sections 4/8/12 of the POCSO Act. The investigating officer then by completing the usual formalities of investigation filed the charge sheet. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. was recorded. The defence of the accused was of denial. The investigating officer then by completing the usual formalities of investigation filed the charge sheet. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. was recorded. The defence of the accused was of denial. The prosecution in support of its case examined 13 witnesses. The other evidence in the form of certain documentary evidence were also placed before the Court such as medical certificates, seizure memo. In support of the plea of innocence two defence witnesses were examined. The material witnesses namely, the informant mother of the victim as well as father of the victim were thoroughly examined by the prosecution and were subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence. But the witnesses were unshaken and stood firm in their testimony. The other witnesses also stood firm and supported the case of prosecution. An attempt was made through defence witness no. 1 to put a theory of the injury being caused to the victim by scratching, whereas through defence witness no. 2 a lame attempt was made to put another defence in the nature of rivalry due to land dispute. 4. The Ld. Trial Court thoroughly examined and appreciated the evidence of the prosecution and also considered the defence theory and arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution successfully established its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and though the prosecution proved the charges against the accused for commission of offence under IPC as well as under the POCSO Act, by observing that as the offence under IPC is more serious and it is proved by the prosecution the sentence was awarded only for commission of offence under IPC, a separate sentence under the provisions of the POCSO Act was not awarded. 5. The High Court was of the opinion that the Trial Court committed no error and resultantly the appeal filed by the petitioner-accused was dismissed. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the medical evidence is not sufficient to establish the case of prosecution about the penetration. It was additionally submitted by the Ld. Counsel that there is no injury marks found on the victim. It was further submitted that the witnesses were the interested witnesses and as such they were supporting the case of prosecution. 7. We have gone through the material placed on record. It was additionally submitted by the Ld. Counsel that there is no injury marks found on the victim. It was further submitted that the witnesses were the interested witnesses and as such they were supporting the case of prosecution. 7. We have gone through the material placed on record. We are of the opinion that firstly, the evidence on facts namely, the version of the informant the mother of the victim is the detailed version establishing the offence as well as authorship of the crime by the accused. 8. At the cost of repetition, we may state that though this witness was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination, she stood firm and unshaken. The version of the informant is most natural and trustworthy and the same is supported by the other witnesses as well as the medical evidence. 9. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner by reading certain part of the medical evidence made a submission that the medical evidence is not supporting the case of prosecution, but in our opinion, the submission of the Ld. Counsel cannot be accepted for reasons that – while referring to the medical evidence, the Ld. Counsel partially highlighted the medical evidence. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the victim in the said incident is a tender aged minor girl of 18 months. The informant mother left the victim for a short duration so as to attend the natures call and by taking the benefit of this fact that the victim was alone at the spot, the accused sexually ravished the victim to satisfy his lust. To establish that the victim was a minor, the prosecution examined PW-4 Dr. Ram Pravesh Prasad, member of the Medical Board and a Dentist. On the dental examination of the victim, PW-4 Dr. Prasad opined thus: “On the basis of the above dental details and radiological findings, the age of victim is about 18 months. This witness authenticated his signature on his medical " report (Exhibit01). During cross-examination, this witness clearly stated that generally, there is a margin of two years in determining the age of a victim, but this general rule does not apply in this case, as the victim is less than two years old. 10. This witness authenticated his signature on his medical " report (Exhibit01). During cross-examination, this witness clearly stated that generally, there is a margin of two years in determining the age of a victim, but this general rule does not apply in this case, as the victim is less than two years old. 10. An attempt was made to submit that the age of the victim may be more than 18 months, in view of the general margin of two years in ascertainment of the age but Dr. Prasad in his cross-examination clearly stated that generally there is a margin of two years, but this general rule does not apply in this case as the victim is less than two years. Another member of the Board, PW-5 Dr. Arun Kumar also confirmed the age of victim as 18 months by referring to the radiological examination. As stated above, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has only picked up some part of the medical evidence in the form of testimony of PW-6 Dr. Shashi Prabha, particularly clause (iii) which reads as follows: “(ii) No menarche, No injury on any part of the body including front and back.” 11. But as stated above, this is only one part of the testimony of the witness and it would be necessary for us to refer to the other material part, of the testimony, clearly indicating that the victim was subjected to the act of rape. We may refer the testimony of the witness which reads as follows: “(i) Weight 8 Kg. (ii) Secondary sex character not developed. (ii) No menarche, No injury on any part of the body including front and back. (iv) Internal examination:-Second-degree perineal tear, involving mucous membrane and muscles 2.5cmX1.5cm, no fresh bleeding present. Abrasion all around anus with reddish color, vaginal swab taken and sent to pathologist for examination of spermatozoa. The pathologist report shows spermatozoa not found. (v) Opinion:- Evidence of recent sexual assault is present. This witness has also certified their signature (Exhibit-02) on the medical board report. This witness has also clearly stated about the Abrasion all around anus of the victim. This witness, in their cross-examination, has stated that perineal tear could also be 24 hours old.” 12. Another member of the Board PW-12 Dr. Asha Kumari also fully supports the case of the prosecution. The evidence of Dr. Asha Kumari reads as follows: “weight-08 Kg. This witness has also clearly stated about the Abrasion all around anus of the victim. This witness, in their cross-examination, has stated that perineal tear could also be 24 hours old.” 12. Another member of the Board PW-12 Dr. Asha Kumari also fully supports the case of the prosecution. The evidence of Dr. Asha Kumari reads as follows: “weight-08 Kg. Secondary Sexual character not developed. H/O- Menarche- No menarche Married- Unmarried ; External findings- No injuries on any part of the body including front and back. Internal findings-Two-inch perineal tear present involving mucous membrane and muscles (2.5cmxl.5cm), no fresh bleeding present. Abrasion all around anus with reddish color, Vaginal swab taken and sent to pathologist for examination of spermatozoa. Investigation Vaginal swab for exam of spermatozoa Spermatozoa not found] Opinion:- Evidence of recent sexual assault present. This witness has certified their signature on the medical board report as Exhibit-02/01. Similarly, Prosecution Witness No.-13, Dr. Kamini Rai, in their main examination, has stated that:- On dated 04.06.2018, We examined the victim aged about 18 months. Weight - 8 Kg. Secondary Sex character not developed. External findings - no injury on front and back of body. Internal findings -2nd Perineal tear present involving mucous membrane and muscles 2.5cmxl.5cm, On fresst bleeding present. Abrasion all around anus with reddish color, vaginal swab taken and sent to pathologist for examination of spermatozoa. Opinion - Evidence of recent sexual assault present. This witness has certified their signature on the medical board report as Exhibit-02/02. 13. Thus, medical evidences referred to above, leaves no doubt in any manner that the victim was subjected to an act of grave sexual assault particularly the minor victim was raped, and the testimony of the informant fully establishes that it was the accused and none else, who had committed the offence of rape on the minor victim. 14. Accordingly, we see no reason to take the different view than the view adopted by both the Trial Court and the High Court. We are in complete agreement with the observations made by the High Court in following words “the petitioner -accused has displayed a horrendous act of satisfying his lust and he was not worthy of any leniency”. Thus, the petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed.