JUDGMENT The appellant has been convicted under section 376 of the IP.C. and sentenced to undergo R.L for one year by the Sessions Judge, Balaghat in S. T. No. 34/86. The appellant who was adolacent age at the time of occurrence i.e. on 20.7.85 he said to have committed rape upon Sandhaya baby of 3 years old. Shri S.L. Kochar counsel for the appellant has contended that the conviction of the appellant is based on conjucture and surmises and not on legal evidence. The victim baby was examined by P.W. 1 Smt. Ranu Chouhan, who did not find any sign or symptom of rape on prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was also examined by P. W. 11 lady Dr. Smt. I. Khan, she also did not find anything wrong done to the victim. On perusal of the evidence of 2 lady Doctors P.W. 1 & P.W. 11 there is nothing that the victim baby was sexually harassed. On the basis of evidence available on record the conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 376 of the I.P.C. cannot be sustained. On the basis of the medical evidence available on the record the offence under section 376 I.P .C. is not amply proved. The conviction of the appellant is, therefore, cannot be sustained. However, the offence under section 354 of the I.P .C. is made out and the conviction of the appellant under section 376 of the I.P.C. is altered to one under section 354 of the I.P.C. and the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him, and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 6 months. The amount of fine when realised will be paid to Brij Bihari father of the prosecutrix. With this modification in the conviction and sentence of the appellant, the appeal is allowed in part.