Short Note : 1. The prosecution case is this : On 26-2-1975, Shantibai (P.W.1), aged about 12 years, was returning to her house with Tuwar Fallis. When she reached the Nala, near the field of Mangilal Patel, which is a furlong away from the village, the appellant came from behind and caught hold of Shantibai, gagged her mouth, threw her down and committed sexual intercourse with her. On hearing the cries of Shantibai, her Badi Maa Gangabai (P.W.7) reached the spot and saw the appellant committing sexual intercourse with Shantibai. On seeing Gangabai, the appellant left Shantibai and ran away. In the grappling between the appellant and Shantibai, Shantibai's mala and buttons of the blouse were broken and fell down on the spot Shantibai suffered injuries on her back elbows and breasts. Shantibai accompanied by Gangabai informed the village Patel of the occurrence who asked Shantibai to lodge a report. Held : The evidence conclusively established that the appellant had felled the girl Shantibai down in the Nala and had committed sexual intercourse with her. This is corroborated by the first information report, the medical evidence and the information given by the girl to other persons immediately after the occurrence. The presence of injuries on her person has been testified by more than one witness as supported by the medical evidence. The absence of spermatozoa can be explained on the ground that the appellant after partial penetration could not reach the stage of discharge and had to run because Gangabai (P.W.7) arrived on the spot hearing the cries of the girl. The appellant barely denied and could not explain why a number of prosecution witnesses would falsely implicate him. 2. In regard to her age, Shantibai (P.W.1) herself has given her age as 12 years. According to Dr. V.M. Agnihotri (P.W.14), on the basis of the ossification test, the age of Shantibai was below 14 years but above 12 years. There is nothing to indicate incorrectness of this opinion. I am, therefore, of the view that the girl Shantibai, at the time of sexual intercourse, was minor. 3. Rape on a minor girl is a serious offence. But in this case, the appellant is aged about 20 years of age and could not also complete the sexual intercourse because there was no discharge. I am, therefore, of the view that the girl Shantibai, at the time of sexual intercourse, was minor. 3. Rape on a minor girl is a serious offence. But in this case, the appellant is aged about 20 years of age and could not also complete the sexual intercourse because there was no discharge. Any way penetration is sufficient to bring the act of the appellant under section 376 of the Penal Code. But this fact can be taken into consideration to reduce the sentence. In my opinion, the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment shall meet the ends of justice. 4. For the reasons given above, the appeal partly succeeds and is allowed. The conviction of the appellant Poonamchand under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed. The Jail sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment is reduced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment. AIR 1952 S.C. 54 and AIR 1958 S.C. 143 relied on. Appeal partly allowed.