JUDGMENT 1. - Dr. S.S. Bhandawat - The fact, of this appeal are that in the village Kaitnala, Tehsil Alwar, accused Chhotey Khan was cultivating the land belonging to Isardas father of Mst. Sharda PW 1 a girl of 10 years. On 5-3-1974, at about sunset, Mst. Sharda went to her field to collect the leaves of `Sarson'. The accused Chhotey Khan came over there, threw her on the ground removed her salvar and began to ravish her. After having done so, the accused ran to his house. The victim also went to her house and gave the narration of the occurrence to her mother Mst. Ramabai PW 2. She carried her to the Police Station, Sadar, Alwar, where the F. 1. R. Ex. P. 1 was recorded at 7-40 PM. Mst. Sharda was sent for medical examination. Dr. P.S. Agarwal examined her at 810 PM. 2. According to Dr. Agarwal the age of the girl was 10-12 years which was also confirmed by X-ray examination. The learned trial Judge also held that the age of the girl was 10-12 years and that the age of boy was 17 years. Dr. Agarwal had further found that there was no external injury on any part of the body of Mst. Sharda except vulvo vaginal area. Thighs showed blood clots. There was fresh bleeding from the vegina, separation of thighs was painful. The hymen showed fresh tears which were tender. Vaginal examination was conducted through Anaesthesia next day and it revealed a rupture of the posterior vaginal wall, and, presence of blood clots in the vagina. The pathological examination of the vaginal swab and smear did not show any spermatozoa. The Medical Officer was of the view that penetration in the vagina had taken place. The examination of the accused Chhotey Khan disclosed that the glans was clean and there was no smegma present. 3. The learned Judge observed that there was no question of sperms and gonococci because the act did not take place for more than a fleeting moment. Methphorically speaking it was a case of touch and go. He used the word touch as synonymous with penetration. 4. The story of Mst. Sharda was corroborated by the statement of her mother and by medical evidence. He, therefore, found the appellant guilty under section 376 Indian Penal Code and awarded him hard labour for five years. Hence, this appeal. 5. He used the word touch as synonymous with penetration. 4. The story of Mst. Sharda was corroborated by the statement of her mother and by medical evidence. He, therefore, found the appellant guilty under section 376 Indian Penal Code and awarded him hard labour for five years. Hence, this appeal. 5. The learned counsel submitted that the prosecution case has not been proved any manner of reasonable doubt. He made the following points in this connection. 1. Mst. Ramabai PW 2 mother of the daughter has deposed that when Sharda told her what had happened to her, she inserted her finger in her private part in order to see why it was bleeding. In this circumstance, it can not be ruled out that internal tear took place on account of insertion of finger by her own mother. The medical officer has agreed that the injury could be caused by insertion of a finger. 2. Mst Ramabai PW 2 had deposed that Sharda was wearing a chaddi and a salvar. The chaddi has not been produced and though the salvar is found positive for blood, it was proved to be human blood. Mst. Sharda even stated that she continued to wear the salvar during all the time she was assaulted. This statement of Mst. Sharda is incompatible because the salvar should have been removed if the alleged act in fact did take place. 3. There was no external injury on any part of the victim though there was sarson crop standing in the field. Even the Judge described it as a touch and go affair. Jiwandas PW 3 who was produced to corroborate the statement of Mst. Sharda should not be believed because he is a close relative of Sharda. 4. The accused has taken the plea of alibi that at the alleged time of occurrence he was at Alwar selling Sarson to Kailash Chand DW 8. He also examined himself as a witness DW 9 but no cross-examination was directed towards showing that his plea of alibi was wrong. As a matter of fact a false case has been instituted against the accused. Father of Mst. Sharda wanted to regain possession of the field which Chhotey Khan was stoutly opposing. He also examined himself as a witness DW 9 but no cross-examination was directed towards showing that his plea of alibi was wrong. As a matter of fact a false case has been instituted against the accused. Father of Mst. Sharda wanted to regain possession of the field which Chhotey Khan was stoutly opposing. Isardas even went to his house in the presence of his sister Basri DW 5 and brother-in-law Kamlu DW 6 and the threatened the accused that he will have him sent to prison if he did not give up his land. There was no reason to disbelieve the plea of the accused. 5. Lastly, it was submitted that the accused was arrested on 5-3-74 and may be let off on the sentence undergone if the court came to the conclusion that the case was proved against the accused. 6. I have considered over all these submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. None of the points has any merit. The learned lower court has rightly rejected the plea of alibi because such a plea can always be raised and witnesses be managed to prove the same. It is also not possible to believe that the parents will like to cause such an injury to their daughter both in body and reputation for the purpose of making the accused to surrender possession of the land. It is further ridiculous to suggest that no rape had taken place and the vaginal injury was caused by the finger introduced by the mother. The arguments in respect of the salvar and the chaddi are equally worthless As regards the metaphor of ``touch and go" used by the Judge. 1 do not find that by the use of these words he meant to record a finding. What he wanted to convey was that the penetration did take place but no sperms could be discharged because the act did not last long. I have myself examined the evidence and I find that the statement of Mst. Sharda is a truthful version of the criminal act committed against her. 7. Looking to the age of the assailant however. I do agree that the punishment for five years may call for some reduction. 8. Consequently, 1 partly accept this appeal, maintain the conviction of the is sentence from five years to four years rigorous imprisonment. *******