Judgment S. S. BYAS, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a jail, appeal by the accused Punia alias Pannalal against the judgment dated October 5, 1982 of the learned Additional, Sessions Judge, Udaipur convicting and sentencing him as under: Sections Sentence Awarded 307, Indian Penal 4 years, R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to Code undergo 6 monthst rigorous imprisonment. 376, Indian Penal 4 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment of fine to Code undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. 394, Indian Penal 4 years, R. I. and a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo Code 6 months rigorous imprisonment. ( 2 ) SUBSTANTIVE sentences were made to run concurrently, while those in default of fine consecutively. ( 3 ) P. W. 1 Smt. Khomli aged about 25 years, who is prosecutrix in the case used to live with her parents in village Maladeo District Udaipur. In July 1981, she came to Udai Pur in search of some job. The accused took her to village Pahada where she was working in some fields. On 5-7-1981, the accused took her to Udaipur. After having some rounds in the city, the accused took her in a lonely place situate near CTAE College. There he committed rape with the prosecutrix. When she tried to raise cries, the accused took out a knife and struck a number of blows with it to her. Srnl Khomli was wearing the silver ornament, Ex. 1 in her neck. The accused forcibly removed it and thereafter made good his escape. Smt. Khomli somehow or other managed to come to CTAE College. There she found watchman P. W. 3 Rooplal. She told him what had taken place with her. P. M. 3 Rooplal contacted the Chief Warden P. W. 2 Shri Jabbar Singh. P. W. 2 Jabbar Singh informed the Station House Officer, P. 5. Pratap Nagar. P. W. 12 Prahlad Singh, S. H. O. immediately came to the College and recorded the statement Ex. P/2 of the prosecutrix. He registered a case under Sections 307, 376 and 394, Indian Penal Code and. proceeded with the investigation. The site was inspected. The medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted by P. W. 8 Dr. G. L. and, the then the Medical Jurist III the General Hospital, Udaipur. P/2 of the prosecutrix. He registered a case under Sections 307, 376 and 394, Indian Penal Code and. proceeded with the investigation. The site was inspected. The medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted by P. W. 8 Dr. G. L. and, the then the Medical Jurist III the General Hospital, Udaipur. He found as many as 12 injuries on the person of the prosecutrix except injury No. 12. All the injuries were stated to have been caused by same sharp edged weapon. Six of the injuries were stated as dangerous to life. He also found the evidence of recent sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. The medical reports prepared by him, are Ex. P/8 and Ex. P/9. The accused was arrested on 12-7-1981. In consequence of the information furnished by him whilst under the police custody, the stolen silver ornament and the knife used by him in the commission of the offence were recovered from various places. The bloodstained clothes of the prosecutrix as well as of the accused were seized and were sent for Chemical Examination. The blood was found on all of then. After when, the investigation was over, the police submitted a challan against the accused in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, who in his turn committed him to the court of Sessions to take trial. The case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Udaipur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, framed charges under Sections 307, 376 and 394, Indian Penal Code against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. According to him. , his relations with the brother of the prosecutrix were not happy. As such, he was falsely implicated. He laid his claim on the stolen silver ornament and stated that those it belonged to him. During trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and filed some documents. The recovered articles were also produced. In defence, the accused examined him self and one more witness. On the conclusion of the trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the Prosecution story as true and held that all the charges duly proved against the accused. The accused was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Aggrieved against his convictions and sentences, the accused has filed this jail appeal. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae and the Public Prosecutor for the State. The accused was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Aggrieved against his convictions and sentences, the accused has filed this jail appeal. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae and the Public Prosecutor for the State. I have also gone through the case file, carefully. ( 5 ) IN assailing the conviction of the accused, the first contention raised by the learned Amicus Curiae is that there was no independent witness in the prosecution camp. It was argued that the prosecutrix P. W. 1 Smt. Khamti was the sole witness and the entire prosecution case rests on her testimony. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was wrong in accepting what she stated as true. It was argued that the testimony of the prosecutrix should not be believed. She was a grown up woman and it is difficult Ito imagine that the accused would commit rape on, her. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused is a near relative of the prosecutrix. It is difficult to imagine that she would falsely implicate her own relative on such grave and heinous charges. ( 6 ) I have taken the respective situations into consideration. Needless to say that the entire prosecution case rests squarely and completely on the testimony or the prosecutrix Smt. Khamli (P. W. 1 ). In case, she is believed there is no escape for the accused and if she disbelieved, the accused goes scot free. She stated that she was living with the accused in his village where she had gone in search of some job. The accused took him to Udaipur on 5. 7. 1981. When they were returning, he took her to a lonely side near CTAE College. He proposed her to have good time with him. She refused and turned down the proposal the accused become angry and took out a knife She got frightened. The accused, thereafter forcibly placed her on the ground and then committed rape. She very clearly stated that the accused committed the sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her consent. She raised cries and the accused, then struck a number of blows on her neck, hack and other parts with his knife. The accused also forcibly removed the silver ornament Ex. 1, which she was wearing in her neck. The accused thereafter ran away. It all took place in the early evening. She raised cries and the accused, then struck a number of blows on her neck, hack and other parts with his knife. The accused also forcibly removed the silver ornament Ex. 1, which she was wearing in her neck. The accused thereafter ran away. It all took place in the early evening. She further stated that she want to CTAE College and found a watchman there. She told him about the occurrence. After sometime, the police arrived there in the College. The police seized her blood, stained clothes and recorded the statement Ex. P/i. She also stated that she was medically examined by P. W. 8 Dr. G. L. Dad. She was cross-examined at length but nothing could be elicited, which may make her testimony un worth of belief or credit. No doubt, she is the prosecutrix, but her testimony cannot be discarded only on this ground. She is a near relative of the accused. It is beyond the comprehension that she would falsely implicate her own near relative on grave and heinous charges. ( 7 ) THE medical evidence affords a very valuable corroboration to her testimony. The medical evidence shows that as many as 12 injuries were found on her person. Except one all other injuries were found to have been caused by some sharp edged weapon. There injuries were on her neck and other vital parts of the body. The medical examination took place within a few hours of the occurrence. The presence of these injuries indicates that she raised protest but was silenced by the, accused at the point of the knife. The learned trial Judge accepted her testimony as true and I find no good or cogent reasons to take different view. The testimony or the prosecutrix is above the board and free from suspicions. There is no risk in accepting her testimony a true. From while she stated; it stands proved that the accused committed rape on her, inflicted a number of blows to her with his knife and forcibly took away her silver ornament Ex. 1, which she was wearing at that time. The first contention raised on behalf of the accused has thus, no force. ( 8 ) IT was next argued that the silver ornament Ex. 1 was wrongly held as belonging to the prosecutrix. 1, which she was wearing at that time. The first contention raised on behalf of the accused has thus, no force. ( 8 ) IT was next argued that the silver ornament Ex. 1 was wrongly held as belonging to the prosecutrix. I am unable to accept this contention; No question was put in cross examination to the prosecutrix suggesting that the silver ornament Ex. 1 did not belong to her or that the accused was the owner of it. The accused has also adduced no evidence to show that the aforesaid ornament belonged to him. The contention thus holds no ground. ( 9 ) LASTLY, it was submitted on behalf of the accused that the sentences awarded to him are heavy and harsh. He is a young man of 30 years and a lenient view should, therefore, be adopted in the matter of punishment. In my opinion, the sentence of 4 years for such grave and heinous offences like rape, robbery and attempt to commit murder, cannot be said to be harsh and heavy. No other contention was raised. ( 10 ) AS a result of the above discussion. I find no force in this appeal. The accused was rightly convicted and sentences awarded to him are no means heavy or excessive. ( 11 ) IN the result, the appeal of the accused Punis alias Pannalal is hearby dismissed. He is in jail and he informed accordingly.