K. I. SHRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15/7/1986 passed by the lind Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No. 75 of 1986 whereby the appellant has been convicted under sections 326 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and 3 months respectively, sentences to run concurrently. ( 2 ) CIRCUMSTANCES giving rise to this appeal are these. Ahilyabai (P. W. 2), the victim of the offences is married to Bhanwar, the son of the appellant. The said Bhanwar is half-mad. Earlier the appellant had attempted to commit sexual intercourse with Ahilyabai but he had been unsuccessful. Thereupon she had desired to go back to her parental home. The appellant assuring her to take her there had on the date of occurrence taken her with him. On the way he tried to persuade her not to go to her parental home. She, however, did not agree. Thereupon he chopped off her nose, brought her back and confined her in his house. He committed rape on her and on being asked by her had gone to can her mother-in-law after bolting the house door from outside. ( 3 ) IN her turn Ahilyabai got the door opened and went to the Chowkidar but he was not available. She then went to the village Pipalya where her sister resides. She narrated the incident to her. Thereupon her sister and the sister's father-in-law took her to the police station and the First Information Report was lodged. On the basis of the report a crime was registered and investigation was set afoot. ( 4 ) AT the conclusion of the investigation the appellant was prosecuted with the result already stated. ( 5 ) THIS defence of the appellant was that with the help of her relatives Ahilyabai has falsely implicated him. ( 6 ) DURING investigation Ahilyabai was sent for medical examination. It was found that she was subjected to sexual intercourse. She also had injury on her nose. Broken pieces of bangles were seized from the spot. Razor was also seized from the appellant and it was found to be bloodstained. His underwear too was seized and it was found to have seminal stains. It was found that she was subjected to sexual intercourse. She also had injury on her nose. Broken pieces of bangles were seized from the spot. Razor was also seized from the appellant and it was found to be bloodstained. His underwear too was seized and it was found to have seminal stains. ( 7 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that from the evidence of Ahilyabai in paragraph 1 of her deposition it is clear that contrary to her version in the First Information Report the appellant had himself requested her not to return back from her parental home to which she was being escorted by him. He goes on to urge that in this context and in the context of the fact that she had been disbelieved on the point of rape on her by the appellant, it will be highly hazardous to place reliance on her uncorroborated version as to the offences under sections 326 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 8 ) ON a careful analysis of the evidence the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that Ahilyabai was a woman of loose character. It is true that there is no eyewitness to corroborate her version that the appellant is the person who had chopped off her nose but with the medical evidence on record the fact that the tip of her nose was chopped off to the extent of on either side cannot be disbelieved. ( 9 ) THE crucial question is one of the authorship of the offence under section 126 Indian Penal Code. The evidence of Ahilyabai as to the circumstances in which the appellant chopped off her nose may be different but the fact that the appellant was the person who had chopped off her nose is, in the circumstances, clearly entitled to credence. I am clear in my mind that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in convicting the appellant under sections 326 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 10 ) THIS brings us to the question of sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that it might be that because of Ahilyabais loose character, the appellant who is her father-in-law was driven to commit the crime and, therefore, a lenient view should be taken. ( 10 ) THIS brings us to the question of sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that it might be that because of Ahilyabais loose character, the appellant who is her father-in-law was driven to commit the crime and, therefore, a lenient view should be taken. ( 11 ) ON a careful consideration I am of the view that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 years under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code deserves to be suitably reduced. ( 12 ) IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 342 of the Indian Penal Code are both maintained. His conviction under section 326 ibid is also maintained but the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. Appeal allowed. .