V.K. Bist, J.This appeal, preferred u/s 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.03.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2006 State v. Sonu Kumar, whereby accused/appellant Sonu Kumar has been convicted u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment for six months has been awarded. It is directed that the prosecutrix or her guardian shall be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 10,000/- out of fine awarded to the accused. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Lower Courts Record.

2. The facts, leading to the appeal, are that on 11.06.2006 at 8:30 p.m., (P.W.-3) Madan Lal Semwal, father of Km. Malti alias Mavali (victim) lodged a written report (Ext. A-4) with the Station House Officer, Chamba, Tehri Garhwal alleging that on 10.06.2006 his daughter accompanied with her younger brother-Pradeep, aged 8 years, had gone Chamba for purchasing sugar. On that day, on reaching home, at about 2:00 p.m., his daughter reported that below the forest bungalow, one lad, whose hair were red in colour; light mustaches; thin in built; wearing half shirt-having red-white stripes with pant-jeans-ball mark in the pocket, obstructed her and put knife at her brothers neck. Km. Malti took off the knife from her brothers neck and asked him to flee and report the matter at home. Thereafter, when she tried to run back to Chamba, the lad caught her hair from backside and took her in the bushes below the pathway and raped her. It was reported that his daughter-Malti is minor having 14 years of age and she can identify the accused. It was reported that the complainant was busy in search of the accused, but the accused could not be traced out. On the basis of written report, a case crime No. 470 of 2006 was registered and a F.I.R. (Ext. A-5) was lodged against an unknown person u/s 376, I.P.C. and an entry was made in the General Diary (Ext. A-6). Investigation of the case was entrusted to Sub-Inspector Kunwar Singh Bisht (P.W.-6) who during investigation, arrested the accused, prepared the arrest memo. (Ext. A-8), took in possession the clothes of the accused as well as the victim and prepared recovery memos (Ext. A-9 and Ext. A-10), recorded statements of the witnesses and after making spot inspection prepared site plan (Ext. A-7). Thereafter, on 12.06.2006 at 12:00 noon, Dr. Kirti Bolkar, Medical Officer (P.W.-1) conducted medical examination of Km. Mavali at Govt. Combined Hospital, Baurari, New Tehri. In the medical examination (Ext. A-1), Doctor Kirti Bolkar mentioned that the victim was brought by Constable Hemlata Pandey in the hospital. On external examination, the doctor found one black mole on the right cheek of the girl, besides it she found abrasion on right side of face, 2 c.m. from right eye, abrasion (multiple) on right shoulder, abrasion wound present extending on labia majora, no injury was found on breast. On being examined internally, the doctor found that hymen was ruptured, edges of hymen fresh tear present, white discharge was present in vagina and cervix. Smear was taken from the discharge and sent to pathology lab for examination. The doctor opined that injury Nos. 1, 2 & 3 were simple in nature. Opinion was reserved till pathological (smear examination of discharge) report. The doctor opined that possibility of rape could not be ruled out. For determination of age, the victim was referred to District Hospital, Narendra Nagar for the X-Ray of wrist joint and obtaining opinion of the Radiologist. In the pathology examination (Ext. A-2) the Pathologist reported that no spermatozoa were seen, as the patient has taken bath three times. On the basis of X-ray report, Dr. Kirti Bolkar prepared supplementary report (Ext. A-3). On being X-rayed right wrist, all carpal bones were found present. Epiphysis of lower end of radius and ulna were not found fused with their respecting shaft. On being X-rayed right elbow, all epiphysis were found fused around elbow joints, except medial epicondyle. The doctor opined that according to radiological examination given by Suman Hospital, Narendra Nagar, the age of the girl was between 13-14 years. The Investigation Officer obtained report from the office of Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Chamba, which is Ext. A-11 on the record. Completion of investigation culminated into filing of charge-sheet Ext. A-12 against the accused/appellant.

3. Statements of the Km. Malti-the victim, u/s 164, Cr.P.C. were recorded by Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal on 19.06.2006. In her statement, she stated that on 10.06.2006 she along with her brother Pradeep, had gone Chamba. After purchasing goods, when she was returning to her home, in the way, the accused Sonu met them, who put knife on her brothers neck. She took off the knife from her brothers neck and managed him to flee. She tried to flee towards Chamba, but the accused by chasing her, caught her with hairs and by dragging her took her into the bush. Then the accused forcefully unwrapped her and committed rape upon her. After committing rape, the accused fled away towards Chamba. Thereafter, she proceeded weeping, towards her home. She was bleeding and suffering with pain. Many people saw her in that condition. Before 11.06.2006, she was not acquainted with the name of the accused. On 11.06.2006 when the police apprehended the accused Sonu, then the accused disclosed his name as Sonu.

4. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, New Tehri on receipt of the charge-sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required u/s. 207, Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial on 11.08.2006 u/s 209, Cr.P.C.

5. Learned District and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal after hearing the parties on 22.08.2006 framed the charge of offence punishable u/s 376, I.P.C. against the appellant/accused Sonu Kumar. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, got examined P.W.-1 Dr. Kirti Bolkar, Medical Officer who conducted medical examination, P.W.-2 Km. Malti alias Mavali, - victim, P.W.-3 Madan Lal-father of the victim (complainant), P.W.-4 Sonu Kumar, brother of the victim, P.W.-5 Shankar Singh, who prepared Chik Report (Ext. A-5) and made entry in the General Diary, copy of which is Ext. A-6 and P.W.-6 Sub-Inspector Kunwar Singh Bisht, Investigating Officer.

7. P.W.-2 is Km. Malti-the victim. She stated that she has two names, Malti and Mavali. She is 14 years old. In the school register, her name is written as Malti. Her father also has two names i.e. Madan Lal and Nand Lal. At the time of conducting medical examination, she also told both the names of herself and her father. She stated that on 10.06.2006 she had gone Chamba with her uncles son (P.W.-4), namely, Pradeep to bring sugar. She proceeded from her home at 10:00 a.m. On that very day at 1:00-2:00 p.m. she was returning with the purchased goods. Pointing towards the accused, present in the Court at the time of tendering evidence, she stated that, in the way, the accused met with them at forest bungalow, which situated at an isolated place. The accused put knife on the neck of Pradeep. She thrust the accused and managed Pradeep to flee from the spot directing him to bring her sister and father. Thereafter, she tried to escape towards Chamba but the accused caught hold of her with her hairs and dragging her, took her in the bushes where he committed rape on her by penetrating his penis into her vagina. At the time of committing rape, the accused was wearing a striped shirt with jeans having mark of ball in the pocket behind the jeans. Thereafter, the accused proceeded to his way and she returned her home in weeping state. At the time of the incident, she was 14 years of age, and was studying in Class V. The accused had light mustaches with light red hairs. In the way, her grandmother and father met her and she narrated them the entire incident. Thereafter, all of them made search of the accused and when he could not traced out, the report was lodged. She stated that on 12.06.2006, they saw the accused in the police station and she identified the accused by his dressings, as the accused was wearing the same clothes, which he was wearing at the time of the incident. She acknowledged the police about the culprit and the incident of rape. She handed over the clothes to the police, which she was wearing at the time of the incident. After the incident, she went home, and took bath twice. She was medically examined two days later after the incident had taken place. This witness has been cross-examined by the defence counsel at length; but nothing has come out in her cross-examination which may create doubt in her statements. The evidence of this witness on each and every aspect is reliable, believable and trustworthy.

8. P.W.-3 is Madan Lal - father of the victim, who has stated that Malti alias Mavali is her daughter. The incident was of 10.06.2006. His daughter, bringing sugar, was returning to her home from Chamba. Her uncles son Pradeep was accompanying with her. On the very day, at 2:30 p.m. when Pradeep returned home, he disclosed that one lad, who put knife on his neck, told him to hold his sisters hand and take her in jungle. His daughter took off the knife and pushed the accused. Then Pradeep fled towards home. When Pradeep disclosed the incident, he (this witness) and his mother were present there. Thereafter, he, his mother and Pradeep proceeded towards Chamba in search of the accused. Malti, in weeping state, met them in the way, who disclosed that the accused put the knife in the neck of her brother and when she tried to flee, the accused caught hold of her with her hairs and dragging her, the accused took her into bushes, where he committed rape upon her. His daughter described the identity of the accused. Thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged. He proved the F.I.R. Ext. A-4.

9. P.W.-4 is Pradeep, brother of the victim, who at the time of tendering evidence, was minor having 9 years. He answered the questions put to him correctly and after being satisfied, this witness was given opportunity of tendering his testimony. He stated that on 10.06.2006 at 1:00-1:30 p.m. he and his sister Malti were going to Chamba in order to bring sugar. When they reached nearby the forest bungalow, at that very moment, one lad caught hold of him and put knife on his neck. Pointing towards Sonu (who was present in the Court below), this witness identified the accused and stated that the accused Sonu told him to take his sister in the jungle. Thereafter, his sister ran towards upper side and he fled towards his home. On reaching home, he narrated the incident to his TAU-Madanlal and his grandmother. Thereafter, all of them proceeded towards the Gwar village and in the way his sister Malti met with them in weeping state.

10. P.W.-1 is Dr. Kirti Bolkar, Medical Officer, who conducted medical examination on the person of the victim on 12.06.2006 at District Hospital, Baurari, New Tehri. This witness proved medical report Ext. A-1. This witness opined that the injuries on the person of the victim could be caused on 10.06.2006. Injury No. 1 would be the sign of nails and can be caused in the process of scuffle. Injury No. 2 can be caused, by tossing someone on hard surface in order to commit rape. So far injury No. 3 is concerned, the same can be caused due to penetration of penis in the vagina. Rupture of hymen could be the result of rape. This witness proved the pathology form (Ext. A-2) and supplementary medical report (Ext. A-3). P.W.-5 is Head Constable Shankar Singh, who, on receiving first information report, prepared Chik Report Ext.-5 and made an entry in the G.D. (Ext. A-6). P.W.-6 is Sub-Inspector Kunwar Singh Bisht, Investigation Officer, who during investigation, recorded statement of witnesses, prepared cite plan, arrested accused, took the prosecutrix for medical examination and also for recording her statement u/s 164, Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the accused, which is Ext. A-12 on record.

11. Learned District and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, after considering the statement recorded u/s 164, Cr.P.C., statement of prosecution witnesses, the statements of the accused/appellant u/s 313, Cr.P.C., the medical report of the victim as well as the statement of the doctor, convicted the accused/appellant and awarded punishment as mentioned above.

12. Learned Amicus curiae for the accused/appellant argued that the guilt of the accused is not proved and the trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused/appellant. Contention of the learned Amicus curiae for the appellant is that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. It is vehemently contended that the F.I.R. was lodged against an unknown person, but no identification parade, as required u/s 55(A), Cr.P.C. was conducted by the Investigating Officer, which is fatal for the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Amicus curiae pointed out some contradiction in the statement of the prosecutrix, contending that the prosecutrix, in her examination-in-chief has stated that he saw the accused at police station on 12.06.2006, on the other hand she categorically stated that her medical examination was conducted after two days, when she saw the accused in the police station. She submitted that there is contradiction in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, as on one hand, brother (P.W.-4) states that he was carrying the bag of sugar, whereas the victim states that she herself was carrying the sugar bag, but this fact is not narrated before Investigating Officer in the process of recording statement u/s 161, Cr.P.C. She then contended that the clothes of the prosecutrix and that of the accused taken by the police in its custody were not sent for chemical analysis, which utterly lethal for prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for the commission of crime.

13. Learned Assistant Govt. Advocate for the State rescinded the submission advanced by learned counsel for the accused and submitted that testimony of the victim and other witnesses is sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. He submitted that statement given by the victim u/s 164, Cr.P.C. fully corroborates the prosecution story. He contended that in an incident of rape, the medical report is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. He submits that solitary and unshaken evidence of the victim is sufficient to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Relying upon the judgment of Honble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Singh Vs. State of M.P., , learned Assistant Govt. Advocate for the State submitted that it is now a well settled principle of law that in the case of rape conviction can be based on solitary evidence of the victim. He contended that the oral testimony of the victim couldnt be disbelieved. According to learned A.G.A., the statement of the victim is sufficient for conviction. He contended that at the time of said incident, the victim was merely 14 years of age, which is proved on record. He contends that the counsel for the defence has taken plea that no chemical analysis of the clothes was conducted by the investigating officer in order to match the samples with the blood sample of the accused, but this question was never put to any of the witnesses examined before the trial Court, therefore no benefit can be given to the accused in absence of any chemical analysis.

14. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the Lower Courts Record.

15. In the case of rape, the onus lies on the accused to prove himself innocent. From the statement of the victim and her 9 years old brother, it is clear that on the date of incident, the accused made the victim helpless in order to commit rape upon her in isolation, by dragging the victim, a girl of 14 years of age, into bushes and by removing her clothes committed rape upon her. In her statement recorded before the Court below, the victim has categorically stated that the accused caught hold of her with her hairs and dragging her, took her in the bushes where he committed rape on her by penetrating his penis into her vagina. Thereafter, the accused proceeded on his way and she returned her home in weeping state. Her statement is fully corroborated by the medical evidence in which the doctor confirmed the rape. According to doctor, injury No. 1 is the sign of nails and can be caused in the process of scuffle. Injury No. 2 could be caused, by tossing someone on hard surface in order to commit rape and injury No. 3 could be caused due to penetration of penis in the vagina. Rupture of hymen could be the result of rape. Thus, the testimony of the victim is fully supported by the medical examination. This is a settled principle of law that the conviction can be made on the basis of solitary evidence if the evidence tendered by such witness is cogent, reliable and in tune with probabilities and inspires implicit confidence. In the present case in hand, the evidence of prosecutrix P.W.-2 K.m. Malti, as discussed above is fully reliable, trustworthy and inspires confidence with the corresponding evidence tendered by the Medical Officer and other prosecution witnesses. P.W.-4, Pradeep, 9 years old brother of the victim also stated same facts, which victim stated before the Court. The accused could not show as to what was the reason to implicate him falsely, leaving the real culprit. So far the lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer i.e. not conducting chemical analysis of the clothes taken in custody by the police and not conducting identification parade is concerned, no benefit can be given to the accused due to lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer.

16. For the preceding reasons, I am of the view that the judgment and order dated 16.03.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2006 State v. Sonu Kumar, u/s 376 of the I.P.C. does not warrant interference. The appeal preferred by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the accused/appellant Sonu Kumar is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal vide judgment and order dated 16.03.2007 in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2006 u/s 376, I.P.C. is affirmed. The accused is on bail. His bail-bonds are hereby cancelled. Let he be taken in custody immediately to make him to serve out the sentence awarded to him. The period already spent by the appellant in jail shall be adjusted in the sentence awarded by the Court below after making verification from the record. Let a copy of this judgment, along with the record of the Court below be sent to the Trial Court.