JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Hamirpur convicting the appellant under section 376, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Other accused, namely, Sukh Dev, Jaishi Ram, Karam Chand, Shakuntla Devi, Pinglan Devi and Madan Lal have been acquitted No appeal against their acquittal has been filed by the State. 2. Sunita Devi (hereafter prosecutrix) is the daughter of Raghunath of village Patnaun. She was living with Pinglan Devi (maternal grandmother) in village Bhira since the start of her schooling. In December, 1991, she was studying, in 6th Class. She had pregnancy of 7 months when checked at Community Health Centre, Barsar Accordingly, she was brought to the house of her parents. It came out that accused Raj Pal, a next door neighbour of Smt. Pinglan Devi and related to the prosecutrix as maternal uncle, had been committing sexual intercourse with her, Consequently, a case under section 376, Indian Penal Code was registered against him at Police Station, Hamirpur on January 15, 1992 On January 16, 1992, the prosecutrix gave birth to a female child at District Hospital, Hamirpur but it died on January 17, 1992. 3. The investigation revealed that the prosecutrix was born on February 17, 1979 and her age was between 12 to 15 years in 1991 when she was sexually assaulted by accused Raj Pal between April 1991 to June 1991. It was also found that in December 1991, mother of accused Raj Pal Smt. Biasan Devi alongwith Smt Veena Devi, had taken the prosecutrix to Hamirpur for abortion but the private doctor refused to undertake the exercise without the consent of her guardian. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was taken to the house of Pinglan Devi. Accused Jaishi Ram, Karam Chand, Smt. Shakuntla Devi, Pinglan Devi and Madan Lal took the prosecutrix to Barsar for keeping her in the house of accused Sukh Dev till she delivered the child. However, accused Sukh Devi also committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix at Barsar and in his village Tihri. After completing the investigation, seven accused were found responsible for the commission of crime and were challaned by the police for offences under sections 366/376/109, Indian Penal Code. However, accused Sukh Devi also committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix at Barsar and in his village Tihri. After completing the investigation, seven accused were found responsible for the commission of crime and were challaned by the police for offences under sections 366/376/109, Indian Penal Code. Charge was framed against accused Raj Pal and Sukh Ram for offence under section 376, Indian Penal Code while the other accused were charged for offence under sections 366/ 109, Indian Penal Code. All the accused denied the charge and claimed trial. The accused not only denied the prosecution case against them but also examined eight witnesses in defence. The trial ended in the conviction of accused Raj Pal only and he was sentenced as recorded in the preceding part of this judgment while the other accused have been acquitted This appeal assails the judgment of Sessions Judge. 4. Learned Counsel for the parties were heard, the matter examined thoroughly. The prosecutrix has stated that in 1991 she was studying in 6th Class in Government Middle School, Bohni. She was staying in the house of Pinglan Devi and Madan Lal since the day she joined in the first standard. About 1-1/4 years back when she was alone in the Verandah’ of the house, accused Raj Pal, residing in the adjoining house and related to her as maternal uncle, called her to his house; She was taken inside the room and it was bolted. Accused Raj Pal untied the string of her ‘Salwar and laid her flat on the cot and thereafter committed sexual intercourse (BURA KAAM) with her. She has also stated that she wanted to cry but accused Raj Pal gagged her mouth with a Chadru (Chuni) and threatened to kill her in case she told about this to anybody She has also stated that a month later, accused Raj Pal repeated the act Many days thereafter when she had gone to Nihali for spraying ashes in the field, accused Raj Pal caught her and committed sexual intercourse with her and she conceived the child. Once accused Raj Pals mother Biasan Devi and Veena Devi took her to a private clinic at Hamirpur where the doctor noticed 7 to 8 months pregnancy. He refused to terminate the pregnancy without the consent of her guardian. Consequently, she was brought to the house of Pinglan Devi. Once accused Raj Pals mother Biasan Devi and Veena Devi took her to a private clinic at Hamirpur where the doctor noticed 7 to 8 months pregnancy. He refused to terminate the pregnancy without the consent of her guardian. Consequently, she was brought to the house of Pinglan Devi. Accused Jaishi Ram, Karam Chand, Shakuntla Devi, Pinglan Devi and Madan Lal took her to Barsar and kept her in the house of accused Sukh Dev where she stayed for two-three days arid then she was taken to Tihri for two-three days. Accused Sukh Dev also committed sexual intercourse with her at Tihri. Again, she was brought to the house of Pinglan Devi where Simro Devi (aunt) came and enquired why her abdomen was bulging out. Accordingly, the prosecutrix told her that accused Raj Pal had sexually assaulted her. She was brought to her mother at Patnaun and taken to Police Station, Hamirpur and the First Information Report was lodged on January 15, 1992, She was medically examined and next day she gave birth to a female child but it died on. January 17, 1992. 5. The prosecutrix admits that the houses of Milkhi Ram and Munshi Ram were near to the house of accused Raj Pal but she did not disclose the incident to any of them or her class-mate Rita Devi. She also admits that during Summer Vacations in 1991, she visited her village Patnaun and that accused Raj Pal had been a student in a Polytechnic Institute, Hamirpur during this year but she denies that she was sexually assaulted by some-one other than accused Raj Pal on account of which she became pregnant. On account of the sexual intercourse, blood was oozing out of her private part and she was feeling pains while walking but nobody enquired from her since she used to walk slowly. She did not raise alarm as the accused had put ‘Chuni’ in her mouth while committing the sexual intercourse. She admits that accused Sukh Dev did not commit sexual intercourse at Barsar but he did so at Tihri, She also admits that Brahmi Devi, wife of Sukh Dev, had been residing with him at village Tihri. 6. Learned Counsel for the accused pointed out that the prosecutrix has made certain improvements in her statement if compared with her statement Ext. DA and Ext. PA, Ext. DA-1, Ext. DA-2. 6. Learned Counsel for the accused pointed out that the prosecutrix has made certain improvements in her statement if compared with her statement Ext. DA and Ext. PA, Ext. DA-1, Ext. DA-2. There is no force in . this submission since these variations are not of much significance The fact of the matter is that the prosecutrix has given a comprehensive account of the main allegation, Her statement clearly points out that she was subject-ed to forcible sexual intercourse by accused Raj Pal at his house and other places. Although her statement is enough to connect the accused with the crime, yet reference to other corroborative evidence is being made now. 7. Dr. Archana Soni (PW 2) examined the prosecutrix on January 15,1992 at District Hospital, Hamirpur. She was found pregnant for duration of 28-30 weeks. On receiving radiologists report, Dr. Archana Soni has fixed the age of the prosecutrix between 12-1/2—15 years and issued the medicolegal certificate (Ext PB). 8. Dr P.K. Soni (PW 4) examined the prosecutrix radiologically and gave her age between 12-1/2—15 years on January 18, 1992. Kishori Lal (PW 5) tested the blood group of the prosecutrix and the newly born baby on January 16, 1992 and found their blood group ‘B-positive while that of accused Raj Pal ‘A-positive’. 9. Smt. Simro Devi (PW 6) is mother of the prosecutrix. She fixes the age of the prosecutrix thirteen years. Smt. Simro Devi (PW 7) (aunt of the prosecutrix) also says that the age of the prosecutrix was thirteen years. Smt, Simro Devi (PW 6) states that the prosecutrix was admitted in the school at Gulela in the first standard and she was residing with Pinglan Devi and Madan Lal in village Bhira upto 6th standard, She came to know from her sisters Kashmiran Devi and Veena Devi that the prosecutrix was pregnant. She sent her ‘Jethani’ Smt. Simro Devi to confirm the fact. She could not go to Pinglan Devis house herself because her husband had died three months before, therefore, her Jeth Gopala Ram, Pardhan and Panch of village went to village Bhira and brought the prosecutrix to her. On enquiry from the prosecutrix, she told her that she conceived the child from accused Raj Pal and did not disclose this fact earlier, since the accused had threatened to kill her. The prosecutrix was taken to the Police-station, Hamirpur and the case was registered. On enquiry from the prosecutrix, she told her that she conceived the child from accused Raj Pal and did not disclose this fact earlier, since the accused had threatened to kill her. The prosecutrix was taken to the Police-station, Hamirpur and the case was registered. The prosecutrix had also told her that she was taken to the house of accused Sukh Dev at village Tihri by the other accused to marry her with him since she had become pregnant The next day, the prosecutrix developed labour pains and she was taken to the hospital where the child was delivered but it died the next day 10. In cross-examination, this witness states that she came to know about the full facts from the prosecutrix when she was brought to her and was running 7th month of pregnancy. She has denied that the prosecutrix did not tell her the name of accused Raj Pal and he was being implicated falsely in order to save the real culprit. As a matter of fact, the prosecutrix had told her that accused Raj Pal had committed sexual acts with her when she had passed 5lh standard and was admitted in the 6th standard. She denies that she gave wrong age of the prosecutrix as thirteen years and horoscope was prepared after the registration of the case. She also admits that Sukh Dev is married and has a wife, 11. Smt. Simro Devi (PW 7) also supports Smt. Simro Devi (PW 6) on all material particulars of the case. She confirms that she had come to the prosecutrix when she came to know that the former was pregnant. The prosecutrix told her that she was pregnant by accused Raj Pal who had been committing sexual intercourse with her. This fact was narrated to Smt. Simro Devi (PW 6) and the prosecutrix was brought home by her and other persons. She was taken to a private hospital at Hamirpur and thereafter to Tihri for marriage with a person whose name she did not know. 12. Dr. Chaman Lal (PW 8) confirms the examination of the prosecutrix on December 13, 1991 and December 18, 1991 at Primary Health Centre, Barsar along with Dr. Miss Sanjay Dhiman and finding of the prosecutrix pregnant by seven month., She was referred to District Hospital, Hamirpur for delivery. 13. 12. Dr. Chaman Lal (PW 8) confirms the examination of the prosecutrix on December 13, 1991 and December 18, 1991 at Primary Health Centre, Barsar along with Dr. Miss Sanjay Dhiman and finding of the prosecutrix pregnant by seven month., She was referred to District Hospital, Hamirpur for delivery. 13. Dr S.P.S. Thakur (PW 9) conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the child on January 17, 1992 at District Hospital, Hamirpur while Dr. Puran Chand (PW 10) states about the medical examination of accused Raj Pal on January 17, 1992 at the same hospital and the accused was found capable of performing sexual intercourse. 14. Gopala Ram (PW 11) also confirms that the prosecutrix was born on February 17, 1979 and her horoscope was prepared from Pandit of Dhangu and she was admitted at Bhira by Pinglan Devi, This witness is the paternal uncle of the prosecutrix. He also states about the death of the father of the prosecutrix on September 12, 1991 and his going to Bhira on November 26, 1991 along with other persons and bringing back the prosecutrix, her statement on enquiry that accused Raj Pal committed sexual intercourse with her and she became pregnant. He also states that the prosecutrix had told that she was taken to Barsar and Tihri to the house of Sukh Dev who committed sexual intercourse with her. He further states that the prosecutrix was taken to a private hospital at Hamirpur for the termination of the pregnancy. He states that the prosecutrix delivered the child and it died the next day of the delivery. He has also admitted that he produced the horoscope of the prosecutrix to the police and denies that the prosecutrix had not disclosed the name of accused Sukh Dev. 15. Jagan Nath Shastri (PW 12) has proved the School Leaving Certificate (Ext. PJ) dated December 4, 1991 showing that the prosecutrix was born on February 17, 1979. Chandu Ram, Secretary Gram Panchayat, Patnaun (PW 13) has proved the birth entry of the prosecutrix, according to which, she was born on February 17, 1979 at Patnaun. Pandit Vinod Kumar (PW 14) proves the horoscope of the prosecutrix (Ext. PL) giving February 17, 1979 as date of birth. Raj Krishan Sharma, Secretary, Municipal Committee, Hamirpur (PW 15) proves the birth entry of female child born to the prosecutrix on January 16, 1992 (Ext PM). Pandit Vinod Kumar (PW 14) proves the horoscope of the prosecutrix (Ext. PL) giving February 17, 1979 as date of birth. Raj Krishan Sharma, Secretary, Municipal Committee, Hamirpur (PW 15) proves the birth entry of female child born to the prosecutrix on January 16, 1992 (Ext PM). Constable Jagjit Singh (PW 16) proves the photographs of the child and HC Om Parkash (PW 17) and Constable Mohinder Singh (PW 18) prove some steps taken in the case. 16. Dr. Mrs. Pritama Thakur (PW 20) states that a child of blood group B-positive’ can be born from the union of the parents of blood groups A-positive and B-positive. She also admits that blood group is the negative test for the determination of the paternity of the child. Other witnesses of the case are of formal nature. Their statements disclose the steps taken by them in the investigation of this case. 17. In their statements under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused allege false implication. Dr. Chaman Lal (DW 1) states that accused Sukh Dev had been suffering from tuberculosis, but admits in cross-examination that he was medically fit to perform sexual intercourse. 18. Smt. Brahmi Devi (DW 2) says that she was living with accused Sukh Dev but denies that the prosecutrix was brought to their house for stay. Munshi Ram (DW 3) and Johnda Ram (DW 4), Pradhan and Ex-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Dhalot, say that the prosecutrix had met them and stated that a boy had taken her to a Nallah near Government School, Gulela and committed sexual intercourse with her as a result of which she conceived and that she did not know that boy. 19. R.P. Sharma (DW 5) has stated that from October 1, 1991 to January 14, 1992, accused Raj Pal had been working at Parwanoo as Mechanical Engineer, while Om Parkash (DW 6) has stated that accused Raj Pal studied in Polytechnic College, Hamirpur from July 1988 to June 1991 as a brilliant student and his character and conduct was satisfactory. 20. Narain Dass (DW 7) has .stated that the prosecutrix had not stated the name of the boy from whom she had conceived. Dr. Manohrama Kaushal (DW 8) has stated that repeated intercourse may stretch the hymen to such an extent that it is not seen and thus this position cannot be with only two or three attempts. 21. 20. Narain Dass (DW 7) has .stated that the prosecutrix had not stated the name of the boy from whom she had conceived. Dr. Manohrama Kaushal (DW 8) has stated that repeated intercourse may stretch the hymen to such an extent that it is not seen and thus this position cannot be with only two or three attempts. 21. From the narration of evidence, it is established that the prosecutrix was minor on the day she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by accused Raj Pal. She continued to be minor till the date of delivery of the child, It is also clear that it was accused Raj Pal who -had assaulted her sexually and made her pregnant The contention that a false case has been initiated against him with an intent to screen the real culprit, is without basis. The evidence against accused Raj Pal is clear and his involvement is beyond any shadow of doubt., It is proved by the prosecution witnesses in unmistakable terms. 22. Since the prosecutrix has been held to be minor, the submission that she did not raise any kind of protest throughout and was, therefore, a willing party, is irrelevant as she is a minor. Moreover, she has stated that the accused gagged her mouth with Chuni and threatened to kill her in case she released this information to any one. 23. The other accused in the case have been acquitted by the trial Court and no appeal against their acquittal has been filed, their involvement in this case is not examined. The learned Counsel for the parties also did not question the legality of their acquittal, 24. The result of the aforesaid discussion, therefore, is that the judgment of the trial Court holding accused Raj Pal responsible for the commission of the offence under section 376, Indian Penal Code is absolutely in accordance with the evidence and his conviction is, therefore, confirmed. 25. Now, the question arises about the sentence part of the case. Learned Counsel for the accused strenuously contended that the accused is a first offender. At the time of committing the offence he was only 19 year old. He is a diploma-holder in mechanical engineering and by this conviction his whole career has been spoiled. 25. Now, the question arises about the sentence part of the case. Learned Counsel for the accused strenuously contended that the accused is a first offender. At the time of committing the offence he was only 19 year old. He is a diploma-holder in mechanical engineering and by this conviction his whole career has been spoiled. By keeping in jail for a long time, he would turn out to be a hardened criminal, In these circumstances, a lenient view may be taken and the punishment may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 26. This aspect of the case has been considered. Looking to the gravity of the offence in one hand and the compassionate pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the accused, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would not suffer in case the sentence is reduced by two years. 27. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed except as to the reduction of rigorous imprisonment by two years. Appeal dismissed.