JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Kalyan, resident of Bawri Khera, Police Station Chhabra, was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baran, on the charge of rape punishable under Section 376 IPC. By his judgment and order, dated, October 31, 1981, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found him guilty, convicted and sentenced him under Section 376 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default, further rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The prosecutrix Kamla, who was raped was a child of 12 to 14 years of age at the time of the commission of this crime. On April 30, 1981, at about 10 or 11 A.M. she was present in the field of Moolchand Dhakar. She was employed by Moolchand Dhakar to perform watch and ward work in his field. The accused petitioner who was employed, at the material time, as a cow herd of a business man of the village, went to the sugar cane field of Moolchand Dhakar caught hold of the prosecutrix and carried her into a room in the field. He felled her there and raped her. He threatened the prosecutrix telling her that if she resisted or cried she would be thrown into a well. After committing the rape, the accused ran away. The prosecutrix returned home, crying and bleeding all the way. She narrated the entire occurrence to her mother and uncle, who were present in the house. Her father was away to Kawai returned after some time. She also disclosed the occurrence to him. Both the father and daughter then went to the police station where the FIR was registered the same after-noon at 3.30 P.M. 3. The Police immediately started investigation. Dr. Yadunandan Vijay of the Civil Hospital, Kawai, examined the prosecutrix the same evening and found that she was profusely bleeding from the vagina. He could not therefore examine her genetelia properly. He referred the case to the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Kota for further examination. 4. Dr. Y.K. Sharma, a medical jurist in the M.B.S. Hospital, Kota, examined the prosecutrix on May 3, 1981 and found the hymen ruptured 5 O' Clock position on the left side. He also discovered that both the vaginal walls were lacerated and the wound was extending upto the fornix. 5. Dr. 4. Dr. Y.K. Sharma, a medical jurist in the M.B.S. Hospital, Kota, examined the prosecutrix on May 3, 1981 and found the hymen ruptured 5 O' Clock position on the left side. He also discovered that both the vaginal walls were lacerated and the wound was extending upto the fornix. 5. Dr. Yadunandan Vijay examined the accused on May 1, 1981 and found him capable of sexual intercourse. 6. The accused was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baran, of the charge of rape. He found him guilty and passed the impugned order of conviction and sentence. The accused has appealed. 7. Mr. Mahrish, learned counsel for the accused has read out the entire evidence before me in an attempt to show that the charge of rape has not been brought home to the accused- He contended that though the prosecutrix has supported the prosecution story regarding her rape by the accused on April 30, 1981, there is no corroboration of her evidence and therefore it would not be safe to convict the accused on her uncorroborated testimony. There is however no rule of law that for the offence of rape conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix. It is only a rule of prudence that corroboration is normally insisted upon It will be seen in the instant case that the prosecutrix has given a very convincing and natural account of the occurrence. She deposed that immediately after the rape she went home crying and bleeding all the way. She mentioned in this context that she had met one Dhanna on her way and that when Dhanna enquired as to why she was crying, she made no reply. Her silence in the presence of Dhanna a stranger who did not have any sympathy for her is quite understandable. Obviously she first wanted to meet her parents and tell them what had happened. 8. Even otherwise, there is ample evidence on the record corroborating the testimony of the prosecutrix. P W. Chhitar, uncle of the prosecutrix to whom she narrated the entire story, has deposed that she had been bleeding and crying at that time and that he had also seen the blood stained Gagri of the prosecutrix. PW. 8. Even otherwise, there is ample evidence on the record corroborating the testimony of the prosecutrix. P W. Chhitar, uncle of the prosecutrix to whom she narrated the entire story, has deposed that she had been bleeding and crying at that time and that he had also seen the blood stained Gagri of the prosecutrix. PW. Mangilal, father of the prosecutrix, who returned home from Kawai after some time of the occurrence also saw the blood stained Gagri and the bleeding child. 9. More over the medical evidence also corroborates the testimony of the prosecutrix. Dr. Yadunandan Vijay, who examined the prosecutrix deposed that she was profusily bleeding from the vagina. He also testified that no public hair was present. He thus confirmed the opinion of the radiologist, Dr. Mathur (PW. 11), that the age of prosecutrix was between 12 and 14 at the material time. 10. It will thus be seen that there is enough evidence on the record to prove that the accused committed rape on Kamla, a child between 12 and 14 years of age, in the area of village Kohani on April 30, 1981 at about 10 or 11 A.M. He has been rightly convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, under Section 376 IPC. 11. This brings me to the question of sentence. It will be seen that the trial court has awarded the accused a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 200/-. There is no mitigating circumstance in the case warranting any further leniency. The accused is guilty of a foul crime committed against a helpless child in the fields away from the village, where none could possibly go to her help I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of sentence. In conclusion this appeal fails and is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baran, is affirmed. Appeal Dismissed. *******