prosecutrix and (PW-3) father of the victim and that there is no major contradictions or omissions in the statements of the aforesaid witnesses. This apart, from the contents of FIR (Ex.P-8) lodged by PW-3 father of the victim and the recovery panchnama vide Ex.P-1 showing that the victim was recovered from the possession of the appellant, it is apparent that accused/appellant is a perpetrator of the crime. A perusal of medical report of victim (Ex.P-5), proved by PW-11 Dr. S.M., although would show that there is no sign of recent sexual intercourse, but she mentioned therein that hymen was found to be torn. It is pertinent to mention here that since the law is well settled that in case of rape, the conviction can be based on sole testimony of the victim if her evidence inspires confidence. In this case, the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and trustworthy and there is no reason to disbelieve her statement and that FSL report (Ex.P-32) would itself suggest that seminal spots and human spermatozoa has been found on the underwear of the prosecutrix and the appellant, which shows that the prosecutrix was subjected to penetrative sexual assault by the appellant. The trial Court, after appreciating the overall evidence and material available on record, held that it was the appellant, who on the date of incident i.e. 19.02.2019 , abducted the minor victim from lawful guardianship, took her to the forest where he committed penetrative sexual assault with the minor victim, which is a pure finding of fact based on the reliable evidence available on record and the same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Being so, we hereby affirm the conviction and sentence of the appellant as recorded by the trial Court.
