JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, dated 12th September, 1981 whereby the accused appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 376 I.P.C. to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for three months and under Section 323 I.P.C. to three months rigorous imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the accused-appellant that the conviction of the accused-appellant mainly rests on the testimony of the prosecutrix Mst. Kela. It has been contended that the prosecution has not succeeded in producing any other eye-witnesses to the incident. It was also contended that a reliance can be placed on the statement of PW 2 Kalu. It has also been contended that the learned trial Court erred in law in ignoring the fact that there were no marks of injury on the body of the prosecutrix and that there was no evidence of tearing of clothes or of any other violence. It was further contended that according to the prosecution evidence the age of the prosecutrix is 25 years and that of the accused appellant only 22 years. It was therefore, contended that it is not humanly possible for a single individual to commit rape on a lady. It was also contended that the learned trial Court has erred in placing reliance on the evidence of PW. 5 Dr. Jain, who has stated that there were partly live sperms in the vaginal smear. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State has contended that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court and that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing the guilt home to the accused. 4. The responsive contentions of the learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor has been considered and the record of the case carefully perused. 5. The prosecutrix Mst. Kela has stated on oath that on the day of incident she was working on the fields at about 4 p.m. when the accused appellant came there and inquired if she was alone. 5. The prosecutrix Mst. Kela has stated on oath that on the day of incident she was working on the fields at about 4 p.m. when the accused appellant came there and inquired if she was alone. On this the prosecutrix told him that her husband has gone out for treatment and that her husbands elder brothers wife has given birth to a child and as such she has not come to the fields. The accused appellant came thereafter sometime and dragged the prosecutrix to a nearby place and made her lie down. Thereafter the accused-appellant lifted her Ghaghra and committed rape over her. She started weeping and the accused appellant injured her also. After having committed rape the accused appellant ran away. The prosecutrix was then going towards her house and was weeping, she met Kalu, brother-in-law of the accused-appellant and narrated him the entire story. She also narrated the entire story to her mother-in-law Mst. Nathi. Her husband had gone for treatment to Khanpur and therefore, she went to Khanpur and informed him at Khanpur. The Medical Officer Dr. Jain PW. 9 has supported the version of the prosecutrix Mst. Kela. The prosceutrix has been subjected to a long and searching cross-examination Her statements to but nothing could be extracted from her which could belie the prosecution story. Kalu and to her mother-in-law Mst. Nathi, and then to her husband clearly corroborates her story. She also called a Panchayat of the village the same evening and narrated the incident. 6. The accused appellant could not bring anything on record which could assist him in proving that the prosecution case against him is false or fabricated. 7. For the reasons stated above there is no force in this appeal and the conviction registered by the trial Court deserves to be confirmed. 8. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the accused appellant is a young person of 22 years of age. No previous conviction has been show against him. In my considered opinion, the ends of justice would be served if the substantive sentence under Section 376 I.P.C. is reduced from 5 years' rigorous imprisonment to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The imposition offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine the sentence awarded to the accused appellant is also confirmed. In my considered opinion, the ends of justice would be served if the substantive sentence under Section 376 I.P.C. is reduced from 5 years' rigorous imprisonment to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The imposition offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine the sentence awarded to the accused appellant is also confirmed. The conviction and sentence of the accused appellant under Section 323 IPC is also confirmed. However, the accused appellant shall be entitled to a set off under Section 428, Criminal Procedure Code 1973, for the period he remained in custody during inquiry, investigation and trial.The appeal filed by the accused appellant is thus partly allowed as indicated above. The accused and the jail authorities shall be informed accordingly.Appeal partly allowed. *******