Short Note : 1. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 9-9-75 the appellant had sexual intercourse with Kalabai (P.W.1) without her consent and against her will and those committed an offence punishable under section 376. IPC. According to the prosecution Kalabai (P.W.1) was under 16 years of age. Her father Kewalsingh (P.W. 2) had gone out for work. The appellant came to her house and asked her where her father had gone. When she informed that he had gone out for work the appellant caught hold of her hand and took her in the house. There was no one in the house. When she started to cry the appellant gagged her mouth by his hand and had sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her consent. Kewalsingh (P.W. 2) father of prosecutrix came there and on seeing him the appellant ran away. Kalabai (P.W.1) lodged the first information report (Ex. P-1) on 10-9-75 at 11.00 a.m. at Barwani police station which is at a distance of about 10 miles from village Bhawti. After investigation the appellant was prosecuted under section 376, IPC. The appellant denied his guilt and pleaded that he was falsely implicated because there was enmity between him and the father of the prosecutrix on account of some dispute about land. After trial the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence in this appeal. Held : The first question that arises in this appeal is what was the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the incident. Nandram (P.W.5) who was the head master of the school, produced Ex.P-5 which is an entry from the scholar's register of the school to which Kala was admitted. According to that register the date of birth of Kalabai was 1-2-63. Thus. according to Ex. 5 she was 12½ years of age at the time of the incident. Kewalsingh (P.W. 2) the father or Kalabai stated in cross-examination that the age of the girl was 13-14 years. Dr. Miss Sofia Khan (P.W.15) stated that after examination of Kala she was of the opinion that her age was between 12-14 years. Dr. Jain (P.W. 17) deposed that he had taken X-ray of Kalabai and that he was of the opinion that the age of the girl was less than 14 years. Dr. Miss Sofia Khan (P.W.15) stated that after examination of Kala she was of the opinion that her age was between 12-14 years. Dr. Jain (P.W. 17) deposed that he had taken X-ray of Kalabai and that he was of the opinion that the age of the girl was less than 14 years. On appreciation of the above evidence the learned trial judge came to the conclusion that the age of the girl at the time of incident was less than 14 years. I am of the opinion that the conclusion arrived at by trial Court is fully justified on the evidence adduced in the case. 2. As regards the commission of the offence Kalabai (P.W.1) deposed that her father and mother had gone out for manual work and she was all alone at her house. The appellant came to her house and caught hold of her hand, took her inside the house and fell her down on the ground. When she began to cry the appellant gagged her mouth by his hand and thereafter he had sexual intercourse with her forcibly. She further stated that when the appellant was committing sexual intercourse with her she was crying and at that time her father came. The father caught hold of the appellant and slapped him. That on the next day she lodged the report (P.W.1) at Barwani police station where she was taken by her father Kewalsingh. Ex.P.1 was that report and it was signed by her. She is corroborated by her father Kewalsingh, who deposed that when he came at about 4 or 4.15 p.m he heard the weeping sound of her daughter Kala. When he entered the house he saw that the appellant was having sexual intercourse with her daughter. Seeing him the appellant left Kalabai and ran away. In cross-examination he stated that his neighbours Birarilal and Karansingh were sent for by him. It was suggested to him in cross-examination that he had settled the marriage of Kalabai with the appellant. He denied the suggestion. Biharilal (P.W. 3) and Karansingh (P.W. 4) corroborated Kewalsingh that he told them that the appellant had sexual intercourse with his daughter forcibly. 3. The oral evidence adduced by the prosecution is corroborated by the medical evidence. Kalabai was examined by Dr. Sofia Khan (P.W. 15) on 10-9-75. She stated that on examination she found that Kalabai was subjected to sexual intercourse. 3. The oral evidence adduced by the prosecution is corroborated by the medical evidence. Kalabai was examined by Dr. Sofia Khan (P.W. 15) on 10-9-75. She stated that on examination she found that Kalabai was subjected to sexual intercourse. Her report is Ex. P-20. A petticoat of Kalabai and the underpant of the appellant were seized and sent to the Serologist and Chemical Examiner. The Serologist has found human blood on the petticoat and underpant. The report of the Serologist is Ex. P-18. The report of the Chemical Examiner is Ex.P-17 which shows that stains of blood were found on the petticoat of Kalabai and underpant of the appellant. Thus on the evidence adduced by the prosecution it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that that the appellant had sexual intercourse with Kalabai against her will and without her consent and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 376, IPC. On the evidence, the conviction of the appellant was justified and no interference is called for in the appeal. 4. As regards sentence the appellant has been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. Since the appellant was a boy of less than 16 years of age he has been directed by the trial Court to be kept in the Brostal Institute. Considering the age of the appellant I am of the opinion that the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment is rather excessive and ends of justice would be served if the appellant is sentenced to one year' rigorous imprisonment. I, therefore, direct that the appellant shall be sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appeal partly allowed.