JUDGMENT :

S. PUJAHARI, J.

1. In this appeal, the appellant who has been convicted under Section 376, 366 and 343 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, 3 years and 1 year respectively, calls in question the propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi in Sessions Case No.105/48 of 2007.

2. The facts, briefly stated, are that the victim girl (P.W.6), a rustic scheduled caste spinster, had been to a place near a stream at the fag end of the village- Karlakot under Junagarh Police Station to answer the call of nature. The appellant in an erotic impulse appeared at the scene and forcibly carried her to a nearby forest. She made valiant efforts to shout and call for help, but there being none in the vicinity she succumbed to the force of the appellant and the appellant committed rape on the hopeless victim. The appellant detained her in the forest for the whole night and on the next morning took her to village- Jhikipada and kept her there under confinement. On 15.05.2007 having received information as to such confinement of the victim, the father (P.W.13) and grandfather (P.W.1) of the victim rescued her. A village meeting convened, but there being no positive result, P.W.1 lodged an F.I.R. (Ext.1) at Junagarh Police Station on 19.05.2007 at about 8 p.m. whereupon Junagarh P.S. Case No.88 of 2008 under Sections 363 and 376 of IPC was registered and investigation taken up. The victim as well as the appellant was sent for medical examination under police requisitions, Ext.11. The wearing apparels of the victim (M.Os.I to III) and the wearing apparels of the appellant (M.Os.IV and V) were also seized. After completing investigation, the Investigating Officer (P.W.12) submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 376, 363 and 343 of IPC.

3. The appellant denied the charge in entirety and advanced a further plea of false implication. To substantiate the allegations, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. P.W.1 is the grandfather of the victim who lodged the F.I.R. P.W.6 is the victim while P.W.13 is her father. P.Ws.9, 10 and 11 are Medical Officers who had examined the victim, the appellant and who had conducted ossification test of the victim to ascertain her probable age. P.Ws.3 and 5 are co-villagers of the victim while P.W.4 is a person of village- Jhikipada. P.W.5 is the scribe of the F.I.R. while P.W.8 is the Headmaster of Panchayat High School, Banijhara who had proved the School Admission register showing the date of birth of the victim. P.W.12 is the Investigating Officer. The defence choose not to adduce any evidence in support of his plea of denial. Considering the oral and documentary evidence brought on record on behalf of the prosecution, the learned trial court placing absolute reliance on the evidence of the victim concluded that the appellant was guilty of offence under Sections 376, 366 and 343 of IPC and sentenced him, as aforesaid.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that when the evidence of the victim is replete with contradictions and embellishment, the medical evidence conclusively proved that the victim was over 16 years of age and when there is unexplained delay of more than five days in lodging F.I.R. and when P.W.4 has unequivocally deposed that the victim had disclosed before him that out of her own volition she accompanied the appellant, no offence of rape is made out.

5. Repelling such contention, the learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The contention of the learned counsel for the State is that there is no reason to discredit and discard the testimony of the victim who has stood firm in her version and nothing substantial has been elicited in the incisive cross-examination. When the evidence of the victim is inspiring confidence and found to be truthful, there i