Judgment V.N. Misra, J. 1. THIS is an appeal by Buchcha accused who was convicted under Section 376 IPC by Sri Mohan Singh, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. THE prosecution case was that on the 28th of March, 1975, at about 6 P. M. the complainant Jagdish Prasad was at the door of his house in village Teonja, he heard cries coming from the house of Buchcha accused which was to the east and rushed towards his house. When he reached the Bagar of that house he saw that Buchcha accused was committing rape on his minor daughter Km. Malti. On alarm Gulab Singh and Gaya Prasad also arrived at the place of occurrence and saw the offence being committed. THE accused and Km. Malti were separated. THE accused was apprehended and with a report which the complainant got written out by Thakur Prasad he was taken along with the witnesses and Km. Malti to Police Station Khaga where the written report was lodged on 29th March, 1975, at 1.30 A. M. in the night. On this report a case was registered against the appellant, after investigation he was prosecuted and has been convicted as aforesaid. In this case three eye-witnesses of the occurrence P. W. 1 Jagdish Prasad, P. W. 2 Gulab Singh and P. W. 7 Gaya Prasad were examined. Of them, P. W. 2 Gulab Singh and P. W. 7 Gaya Prasad were declared hostile by the prosecution because they stated that they did not see Km. Malti at the spot and they said nothing about her screeming. After they were declared hostile and their testimony was rejected there was the sole testimony of P. W. 1 Jagdish Prasad complainant, father of the girl, left in this case and it was urged that on his sole testimony the appellant could mot be convicted. 3. IN a case like this the sole testimony of the father was sufficient, because no father would ever falsely allege that his own daughter has been raped, because that damages chances of her happy matrimony and brings a bad name to the family. 4. 3. IN a case like this the sole testimony of the father was sufficient, because no father would ever falsely allege that his own daughter has been raped, because that damages chances of her happy matrimony and brings a bad name to the family. 4. BESIDES in this case there was not the sole testimony of P. W. 1 Jagdish Prasad to fay that the rape was committed but his testimony had significant corroboration by the testimony of the other two witnesses Gulab Singh and GYA Prasad Gulab Singh stated that while ha passed by the side of the house of the appellant he heard confusion from his house. He later on said that there was blood near the urethra of this girl and there was blood on her frock. He also said that she was not asked anything but was weeping. P. W. 7 GYA Prasad stated that when he reached near the house of the appellant he saw a crowd there. The complainant Jagdish Prasad had caught hold of the appellant and took him to his house and he saw blood on the thigh of this girl. Thus, though these two witnesses did not say that they saw the girl also at the spot, but they said that they heard confusion coming from the side of the appellant's house, they saw blood on the frock and on the thighs of the girl, and the appellant had been caught by the complainant. From the medical evidence, however, it seemed that the rape had not been completely committed but only an attempt was made to commit rape. On the medical examination of this girl her hymen was found intact and was not ruptured. It would, therefore, seen that only an attempt was made to commit rape on this girl It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 511 I. P. C. because no charge was framed again him for attempting to commit rape and no opportunity was afforded to the appellant to meet that accusation. The evidence examined was that the appellant actually committed rape on this girl. The evidence examined was that the appellant actually committed rape on this girl. The appellant had full opportunity of meeting this evidence and when it was found that the rape had not been completed but only an attempt was made to commit rape he can certainly be convicted with the aid of Section 511 IPC. The father of the girl who was the complainant when he saw this occurrence could get an impression that the rape was actually being committed though the appellant may have been only attempting to commit rape. His evidence was, therefore, not shown to be false, it was fully met by the appellant and the appellant can certainly be convicted with the aid of Section 511 IPC. It was urged that since the conviction of the appellant is being converted into one under Section 376/511, IPC the sentence may be suitably reduced. This occurrence look place on 28-3-1975 and the appellant was bailed out by M.P. Saxena, J. on 30 -11-1976 after one year and eight months Thus, it would meet the ends of justice if he is sentenced to the period already undergone. 5. WITH the aforesaid modification in the conviction and sentence, this appeal is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender and his bail bonds are hereby discharged. Appeal dismissed.