JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwani dated 31.1.1992 whereby he has convicted the appellant under section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to 7 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 200/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months R.I. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case am that one Mst. Sita had gone on the field situated at Bijepur on 22.1.90at about 4-5 p.m. in the evening where accused Chotu committed rape on her. On seeing the incident Kailashi, younger sister of the prosecutrix came to house and narrated the story to the mother. Thereupon parents of the prosecutrix reached the place of occurrence where they saw that Sita was weeping bitterly and blood was coming out of her private parts. The parents of Mst. Sita narrated the whole incident to the villagers but the accused obstructed them in lodging the report and getting the girl medically examined. On 23.1.1990, the father of the prosecutrix in the early morning lodged a report of the said incident at P.S. Gulabpura where case was registered against the petitioner vide Ex.P-1 and investigation was started. Site inspection memo Ex.P-9 was prepared., 'Chaddi' and 'Pachejat' were seized vide Ex.P-10 and Ex.P-11. The accused-appellant was arrested on 23.1.90 vide Ex.P-12. Mst. Sita was medically examined vide Ex.P-2. The Doctor's report is Ex.P-3 and the accused appellant was also medically examined vide Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6. F.S.L report was received vide Ex.P-1 5. After due investigation a challan was filed against the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge framed challenge against the appellant under section 376 I.P.C. to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined 12 witnesses and also produced some documents. No defence witness was produced by the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge after conclusion of the trial convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 3. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant as the accused has been falsely implicated. He also submits that no semen,deluded and medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case. He further submits that at the most it was a consent case. Mr. Hence, this appeal. 3. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant as the accused has been falsely implicated. He also submits that no semen,deluded and medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case. He further submits that at the most it was a consent case. Mr. Gupta has also assailed the finding of the Sessions Judge on the count that at the time of occurrence, the prosecutrix was below 16 years. 4. Mr. Panwar, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment and submitted that the accused appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record carefully. 6. So far as the contention of the appellant that no offence of rape is made out as there was no penetration is concerned, P.W.1 Prosecutrix Mst. Site has stated that she is a unmarried girl. She has stated that before about 10 months at about 5 in the evening she was grazing goats. She has also stated that the accused Chotu gagged her mouth and sat on her. She has further stated that the accused-appellant forcibly put his penis in her vagina and committed rape due to which she bleed profusely. She has also stated that her sister who was also grazing goats had gone home and brought her Kaka at the place of incident and she was taken to borne. This statement has not been shaken by the appellant in any manner and it leaves no room of doubt about the commission of offence. 7. In the offence under section 376 I.P.C., the conviction can be safely recorded on the statement of victim of rape provided her evidence is worth credence and does not suffer from any infirmity and corroboration of medical evidence is not necessary. In the instant case, as stated above not only there is evidence of victim of rape but also there is evidence of P.W.3 Dr. Sunderi Devi who had examined the prosecutrix. P.W.3 Dr. Sunderi Devi has stated that vulva was found normal clotted blood present on it. She has stated that hymen was ruptured fresh vagina admits one finger. She has also stated that " 1. laceration seen on pogtirior fouchette 3 x 1 m.m. 2. Sunderi Devi who had examined the prosecutrix. P.W.3 Dr. Sunderi Devi has stated that vulva was found normal clotted blood present on it. She has stated that hymen was ruptured fresh vagina admits one finger. She has also stated that " 1. laceration seen on pogtirior fouchette 3 x 1 m.m. 2. laceration seen on right lateral vaginal wall 6X 1 m.m." She has also opined that possibility of penetration of vagina cannot be ruled out. In view of this, the contention advanced by Mr. Gupta has no substance. Further- more, in this case the accused Chotu had admitted in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. that he is able to commit sexual intercourse. P.W.4 Dr.M.L Dangi who examined the accused Chotu has found the accused fit to indulge in sexual intercourse. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Trial Court has not convicted the appellant on no evidence, and the argument of Mr. Gupta that the prosecutrix in her cross-examination has stated that when the accused sat on her he discharged is of no avail as merely on this basis it cannot be inferred that there was no penetration particularly when there is evidence of the prosecutrix that blood came out from her vagina due to rape which has been corroborated by P.W.3 Dr. Sunderi devi who also found blood in the vagina of the prosecutrix. Under these circumstances and looking to the evidence on record that the prosecutrix blood profusely, it cannot be said that the appellant did not penetrate the vagina. 8. Mr. Gupta has next contended that the lea coed Court below has erred in coming to the conclusion that the prosecutrix was below 16 years. He has also submitted that Mst. Sita in her statement has admitted that his younger brother Mahadeo had started grazing goats when he was 7 years of age only and that she is grazing goats for the last 4-5 years, she further admits that she is four years elder to Mahadeo, therefore, she is apparently above 16 years. In the instant case, the prosecutrix is unmarried girl belonging to illiterate family grazing goats. The Court below while watching the prosecutrix had an opportunity to ask questions and to examine her ability, understanding and demeanour and after considering the evidence it has arrived at a finding of fact that Mst. In the instant case, the prosecutrix is unmarried girl belonging to illiterate family grazing goats. The Court below while watching the prosecutrix had an opportunity to ask questions and to examine her ability, understanding and demeanour and after considering the evidence it has arrived at a finding of fact that Mst. Sita was below 16 years on the date of incident, therefore, in the absence of any material otherwise placed by the Counsel for the appellant it cannot be said that the prosecutrix was above 16 years on the date of incident. That apart according to calculation also it comes to 15 years, which is corroborated with the statement of doctor who has also opined her to be 15 years, therefore, the non-production of parents of the prosecutrix is not material. As such, this contention of the Counsel for the appellant has also no legs to stand. That apart there is no evidence to suggest that the prosecutrix was knowing the accused earlier nor there is any evidence of previous enmity rather she met first time on the unfortunate day. Under these circumstances there is no reason whatsoever to falsely involve the accused in such a serious crime at stake of her chastity that too when the appellant has himself put forward in the alternative that it was a consent matter. As discussed above, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused appellant under section 376 I.P.C. and the findings arrived at are neither perverse nor based on no evidence and looking to the facts and circumstances of t he case the sentenced awarded is also not excessive. In view of this, I am not inclined to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 9. In the result, this appeal has no force, so it is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******