JUDGMENT S. C. Jain, J. 1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 5.11.1975 at about 4.30 p.m. one Kumari Meera aged about six years was playing near the sugarcane field of one Maqtool Singh in Village Jarara Police Station Pahasu District Bulandshahr. The appellant Nagendra, came there and took the girl on the pretext of taking her to Tamasha'. Instead he took her to the sugarcane field of her uncle. Maqtool Singh and raped her. 2. On her medical examination conducted by Dr. (Miss) S. K. Bhatnagar following injuries were found on the person of Kumari Meera : (1) Multiple superficial scratches in an area of 3/4" x 1", blood over them was clotted. The areas was highly inflamable and tender ; (2) Superficial abrasion on the left side of the spine on her back in mid dorsal area size 1/4" x 1/8". Blood has clotted. Tender and inflamed. (3) Superficial scratches 1/4" x 1/4" on the right superior iliac spine. Tender and inflamed: (4) Superficial scratches 1/4" x 1/4" near the left anterior superior iliac spine. Tender and inflamed. Her height was 3'-9", weight 17 kg. Teeth 12/12 (all milk teeth) Her private parts. Pubes and thighs were smeared with clotted blood. Vulva was smaller and tender. No fresh injury on the libia, pubes on thighs was found. Hymen was torn from 6 O'clock to 8 O'clock position. The adjoining mucus membrane was raw. Margins were irregular and bleed to touch. Slight oozing was continuing. Inflamation was also present. Hymen admitted tip of small finger. It was very tender. Vaginal smear was sent for examination to District Hospital. The doctor in her statement proved the injury report, Ext. Ka. 1 and opined that the age of the girl was about 6 to 8 years and she was raped about a day back. 3. Besides the statement of the Doctor the trial Court took into consideration the statement of Km. Meera and other witnesses who happened to reach there and found the accused, Narendra, guilty for an offence punishable under Section 376, I.P.C. and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under Section 376, I.P.C. for committing rape upon Kumari Meera, a minor girl of about 6 to 8 years. 4. Feeling aggrieved, Narendra, appellant has filed this appeal. 4. Feeling aggrieved, Narendra, appellant has filed this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that as per statement of the Doctor vaginal smear was sent for examination to district hospital but the report has not been proved. According to him it is fatal to the prosecution case and the act of rape has not been proved in absence of analysis report of vaginal smear. 5. The second limb of argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that no reliance can be placed on the: testimony of the prosecutrix, Meera, who was not mature enough at that time and she was not fit to depose on oath. According to him no body else had seen this act of rape and the conviction based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is not legal. He further argued that the statements of the witnesses examined in defence were not correctly appreciated by the trial Court and that from the statement of defence witnesses it has become clear that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. 6. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are chance witnesses and their statements are not sufficient, to corroborate the statement of the prosecutrix, Km. Meera. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the children who were playing with the prosecutrix were not examined to support the prosecution version that Km. Meera was taken by this appellant and it raises presumption against the prosecution story. The last submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, admittedly, the age of the appellant was about 17 years and the benefit of probation under the First Offender's Probation Act should have been given to him but the trial court wrongly rejected his request. According to him the incident is of the year 1975 and the appellant had been on bail throughout and during this entire period there is nothing to suggest that he misused the bail for committed any illegal act. He should be given the benefit of probation under the First Offender's Probation Act. 7. I am not impressed by the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in the present circumstances of the case. He should be given the benefit of probation under the First Offender's Probation Act. 7. I am not impressed by the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in the present circumstances of the case. It is established principle of law as has been laid down by Hon 1516 Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar reported in 1952 Cr LJ 547 that in case where a young girl of immature years and tender age had been raped, and she had made a disclosure of it at the earliest possible opportunity to her mother and another person, there was no need for corroboration by independent testimony connecting the accused with the crime. Indeed no rule of thumb can be laid down. In this matter for every case must depend a good deal on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. In Rafique's case reported in 1980 CrLJ 1344 (Supreme Court) Krishna Iyer, J. as his Lordship then was observed "when no woman of honour will accuse another of rape since she sacrifices thereby what is dearest to her, he cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist on corroborative evidence, even if taken as a whole, the case spoken to by victim strikes a judicial mind as probable....,.." 8. In this case the statement of prosecutrix is corroborated by medical evidence and the injury report stands proved by Dr. (Miss) S. K. Bhatnagar, P.W. 1. The doctor has categorically stated that age of the prosecutrix was about 6 to 8 years and that she was raped about a day-back. She was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing came out of it and she stood the test of touch stone of probabilities in her cross-examination. The plea that report of vaginal smear has not been proved does not have significance in the presence of positive evidence of the doctor, i.e. Dr. (Miss) S. K. Bhatnagar, P.W. 1, who has stated on the basis of medical examination of the prosecutrix that she was raped a day earlier. Besides the statement of the prosecutrix who found fit to depose on oath as the learned trial court put her several questions to ascertation whether she was competent witness to depose on oath or not, there is also corroborative evidence in the shape of medical evidence to the fact that appellant had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix aged about 6-8 years. Her consent is immaterial being a minor girl of 6-8 years. She was found bleeding. Hymen was torn from 6 O'clock to 8 O'clock position. The adjoining mucus membrane was raw. Margins were irregular and bleed to touch. Inflamation was also present. Hymen admitted tip of small finger. In the case of rape or attempted rape medical examination of the victim and the accused soon-after the incident often yield a wealth of corroborative evidence. What more is needed to arrive at a conclusion that she was subjected to sexual intercourse by this accused, who was seen there by the witness who happened to reach there, has not been explained by the learned defence counsel. The accused belongs to same village, the question of mistaken identity does not arise. 9. The plea of the learned counsel for the appellant is that on account of enmity he has been falsely implicated also does not help the appellant in the present circumstances of the case. There is nothing on record to show that there is any enmity which is subsisting between the parents or the grand parents of the parties. The presence of witnesses who belonged to same village at that time and place is natural. The learned trial Court hats correctly appreciated the facts while holding the accused guilty of the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. The report of the occurrence was lodged promptly. The medical report, the injury sheet and the statement of the prosecutrix coupied with the statements of other witnesses of the same village has proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt I find no illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr convicting the appellant under Section 376, I.P.C. and I confirm the same. 10. On the point of sentence, for the offence of this nature minimum sentence provided is seven years and the sentence may extend for life or for ten years if the prosecutrix is less than 12 years of age. The age of the prosecutrix is 6 or 7 years. This act on the part of the appellant is barbarous and that awarding sentence of four years cannot be said to be proportionate to the offence committed by this appellant. The question of giving him the benefit of probation in such circumstances does not arise. The age of the prosecutrix is 6 or 7 years. This act on the part of the appellant is barbarous and that awarding sentence of four years cannot be said to be proportionate to the offence committed by this appellant. The question of giving him the benefit of probation in such circumstances does not arise. In these circumstances, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 11. The appellant who is on bail should be taken into custody for undergoing the sentence awarded to him. However, he will be entitled to the benefit of Section 428, Cr. P.C. for setting off the period already undergone. 12. The record of the trial Court be sent back immediately with a copy of Judgment. Appeal dismissed.