Indira Shah, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.3.2014 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pasighat, Arunachal Pradesh, in Psg. Sessions Case No. 234/13. By the said judgment the appellant herein was convicted under Section 376 (2) (f) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default of payment of fine further imprisonment for 5 months. The fine amount, on realization, was directed to be paid to the victim. Learned trial court also directed the Legal Service Authority for payment of adequate compensation to the victim as per the scheme provided under Section 357 A of Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the victim, a little girl, student of Class – III was raped by a teacher of her school. On 17.9.2008, while the victim was in her class room, the accused called her and took her to his house. The family members of the accused were not present inside the house. When she entered into the house, the accused closed the door and then committed rape on her. She cried out of pain and thereafter, she was released. He asked her not to disclose it to anybody. When she came back home, she narrated the incident to her mother and her mother informed her father, who in turn, lodged the FIR. On the basis of his FIR, Pasighat P.S. Case no. 92/2008 under Section 376 (2) (f) I.P.C. was registered.

3. During the investigation the victim as well as the accused were examined by a homeopathic medical officer. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet u/s 376 (2) (f) I.P.C. was submitted against the accused. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed for trial.

4. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Section 376 (2) (f) I.P.C. and claimed to be tried. The case was then transferred to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge for trial and disposal.

5. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charge, altogether examined 13 witnesses. The accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that he took the victim from school to his quarter on the alleged date and that when they reached his house, nobody was there. He also admitted that the father of the victim who had altercation with the accused, however, denied that he committed rape on the victim. He also examined two witnesses to prove his innocence.

6. The trial court on appraisal of the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and, accordingly, held the accused-appellant guilty.

7. We have heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. M. Bora, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

8. It has been contended by Mr. S.C. Biswas that the medical report does not give positive opinion of rape on the victim. Moreover, the doctor who examined the victim was a Homeopathy doctor and his name was not even registered under the State Medical Council. Though the accused had taken the victim to his quarter but the prosecution failed to establish that he committed rape on her.

9. Mrs. M. Bora, learned Additional Prosecutor, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, however, submits that the trial court rightly held the accused guilty as there was direct as well as circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The learned judge has considered the entire evidence threadbare and there is no scope for interference.

10. There is no dispute that the victim was a student of Class III pursuing her studies in Govt. Middle School at Mebo and the accused was a teacher in the same school. The victim (P.W. 12) has narrated that in the year 2008, the day of Viswakarma puja, the accused called her and took her to his house. According to her, her teacher Moti Madan, her friends Anu Chetry and Geyong Lego had seen her going out with the accused. When she along with accused reached his house she found nobo