R. P. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21st April, 94, by A. S. J. Shakti Camp Janjgir, (Bilaspur ). The appellant was convicted for having committed offence punishable u/s. 376 (1), I. P. C. by raping the prosecutrix in her sister's house. He had trespassed into the house with that intention. The incident took place on 29th Nov. , 92, in village Akaltara within the area of P. S. Pamgarh, Distt. Bilaspur at about 7 a. m. The appellant was convicted u/s. 450 as well as 376 (1), I. P. C. He was sentenced to 5 years' R. I. for the offence u/s. 450, I. P. C. and 7 years' R. I. for offence u/s. 376 (1), I. P. C. He was further sentenced to fine of Rs. 1000/- u/s. 376 (Part-I) and in default of fine, R. I. for one year. ( 2 ) THE prosecution version as it is established was that the prosecutrix those days had come to house of her elder sister in village Kapri Akaltara for helping her in harvesting crop. Vyas Narayan is husband of her sister Kamala. On 29th Nov. , 92, Vyas Narayan had gone to the fields for harvesting crops while Kamala went to fetch water at the Hand Driven Pump (Bore Well) nearby where there was some crowd. So she took some time in getting water. As soon as she went out of the house the accused-appellant approached the house where the prosecutrix was staying, caught hold of Nirmala-prosecutrix and felled her down in the 'parchi' and raped her by use of force gagging her mouth. This resulted in bleeding from her private parts. The accused escaped after his beastly act. Kamla came back with water and Nirmala narrated her woes to her sister, Kamala, in her turn rushed to her husband to apprise him of the incident. Vyas Narayan came to the house and took Nirmala to a Doctor for getting her treatment due to bleeding. The Doctor refused to treat her saying that it was a case of rape and he would not treat without there being a report to Police in the first instance. This is how, Vyas Narayan and Nirmala went to Police Station, Palmgarh and report was lodged there that evening at 7 p. m. on the statement of prosecutrix, where she disclosed of the above facts. This is how, Vyas Narayan and Nirmala went to Police Station, Palmgarh and report was lodged there that evening at 7 p. m. on the statement of prosecutrix, where she disclosed of the above facts. This F. I. R. is Ex. P. 9. The Police saw the scene of crime, collected blood-stained clothes, blood stained earth and other sample earth. They took the clothes of the prosecutrix in possession and got her medically examined at Dr. Ku. Rama who found tears and bleeding in her private parts suggesting recent sexual intercourse. There was no other injury, however. She was also got examined by a Radiologist with regard to her bony age by taking X-rays of her bone joints and epiphyses. The Radiologist opined that her age was around 16 years. ( 3 ) THE trial Court based its findings on the evidence of prosecutrix Nirmala as P. W. 1, her sister Kamala as P. W. 2 and her brother-in-law Vyas Narayan as P. W. 3. Further reliance was placed on the statement of lady Doctor Ku. Rama Verma (P. W. 7 ). Reliance was also placed on F. I. R. ( 4 ) THE defence of the accused was that Vyas Narayan was in fact the culprit, that Vyas Narayan had taken a loan of Rs. 4300/- from him for the purpose of wedding Kamla who was his 4th wife and he had not returned the money even on demand. So the appellant had to beat Vyas Narayan and there was some dispute between Vyas Narayan and this appellant on point of irrigation in the fields and so he has been falsely implicated by Vyas Narayan or at his instance, by Nirmala and Kamala, while in fact Vyas Narayan had committed sexual intercourse with his sister-in-law Nirmala. This story of the defence was totally disbelieved by trial Court. ( 5 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for appellant are the same, in appeal in this Court also. It is further argued that Nirmala had stated in cross-examination that after complaining to her sister-Kamala and to her brother-in-law Vyas Narayan, she had also complained of this act of the accused, to some neighbours also namely Jamuna Bai and Mugra Bai. It is further argued that Nirmala had stated in cross-examination that after complaining to her sister-Kamala and to her brother-in-law Vyas Narayan, she had also complained of this act of the accused, to some neighbours also namely Jamuna Bai and Mugra Bai. Jamuna Bai as defence witness (D. W. 3) denied that this was told to her, that such complaint was made to her by Nirmala and Mugra Bai, has not been produced in Court. Another argument raised is that the prosecutrix Nirmala was not established to be less than 16 years as the Radiologist certified her age to be around 16 years which could be much more than 16 years as per the statement of Dr. C. S. Sharma (P. W. 16) in Court. The argument about enmity with Vyas Narayan and that, in fact, Vyas-Narayan was the culprit is repeated. It is further urged that it is a case which could be of a consent intercourse between accused and prosecutrix as there was no other injury found on her person and she being sufficiently young could resist the accused and if she did so, some injury would have been caused to other parts of her body. The injuries to private parts were normal in the process of intercourse even if it was the consent. No other point has been raised. It is also urged that the F. I. R. was delayed by 12 hours. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for appellant has taken me through the statement of relevant witnesses and Doctor's evidence. It is apparent in this case that the statement of prosecutrix is truthful and credence can be given. Her first version to her sister was that she has been raped by this accused, this was her version in the F. I. R. also. The F. I. R. being 12 hours late cannot be called delayed in this case for the reasons explained in evidence of the prosecutrix, of Kamala and of Vyas Narayan. The course of event clearly shows that Kamala getting knowledge of this assault on her sister, rushed to her husband in the fields. Then the husband came and he first approached the Doctor. That could be his first concern, but then the doctor refused to treat her because the case involved a criminal offence. It was then only that they went to the Police Station to lodge a report. Then the husband came and he first approached the Doctor. That could be his first concern, but then the doctor refused to treat her because the case involved a criminal offence. It was then only that they went to the Police Station to lodge a report. The police station was 14 kms. away from the place of incident. All this has to take time. After the accused had committed a crime, every act of aggrieved party does not take place with lightening speed. The Court has to consider how the feelings of the injured parties are affected by such shocking experience and how they become bemoaned. ( 7 ) THE argument that the real culprit was the brother-in-law Vyas Narayan is palpably false as he was the person who accompanied the girl to Police Station for lodging report. If there was consenting intercourse between him and the prosecutrix, why should they rush to police station for lodging report. They have already denied any enmity with accused, and there is no basis for the argument that there was such enmity. They have admitted that Kamla was 4th wife of Vyas Narayan while the earlier three had left him. This does not justify an accusation that Vyas Narayan committed rape on his sister-in-law who has totally denied it. The accusation is false and without any basis. The statement of prosecutrix is fully supported by her narration in F. I. R. and by the medical evidence. It is further confirmed by the grievance she made to her sister Kamala as soon as she entered the house after fetching water. The place of incident was also the house as was noticed by the police who lifted blood-stained earth from there. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has argued that blood-stained earth is not estab-lished, to have been stained with blood, as chemi-cal report about it has not been produced on record. But that will make no dent in the prosecution story as the narration of the girl is so crystal clear that Kamala had left her house for fetching water and as soon as Kamala re-entered, the prosecutrix made grievance to her about the conduct of the accused. The accused is a neighbour of Vyas Narayan. So no false report could be made against him nor the prosecutrix Nirmala is a girl of loose chastity. The accused is a neighbour of Vyas Narayan. So no false report could be made against him nor the prosecutrix Nirmala is a girl of loose chastity. The narration of prosecutrix about her being raped has to be accepted by Courts as true. It is narration which affects her own career adversely and unless it is true, no lady of good chastity will make such a narration. Similarly a victim of rape would not spare the real culprit, if she knew him. For all these reasons she is believable and is confirmed by the F. I. R. , as well as medical evidence. One more argument raised by the Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is not established to be potent beyond reasonable doubt. However, the appellant is proved to be father of a child, as stated by Vyas Narayan. So potency is proved. ( 9 ) IN a case like this, the age of the prosecutrix is immaterial. The argument of the learned counsel for appellant that the girl could be more than 16 years is acceptable as there was no definite evidence that she was less than 16 years. But this is a case where force had been used by the accused who trespassed into the house. So, age of prosecutrix has no relevance. It is not a case of even implied consent. The argument that there should have been other injuries on the body of girl has no substance as it depends upon circumstances and the fear instilled in the mind of the girl who is the victim of rape, that would decide how much resistance she could put. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for appellant brought to my notice the statement of defence witnesses like T. R. Patel (D. W. 1), a Jail-in-Charge of Sub-jail, Janjgir that while in jail, this accused received a letter addressed by one Nirmala. That letter has not been produced by the accused nor proved by him. It is said to have been received by the accused on 20th Feb. , 1992. Nirmala was examined in Court on 16th March, 1994. So even at that time such letter was not confronted to her. She was asked if she wrote any letter to the accused. She denied it and said that she was illiterate. She was asked that accused wrote a letter to her from Jail. She denied. , 1992. Nirmala was examined in Court on 16th March, 1994. So even at that time such letter was not confronted to her. She was asked if she wrote any letter to the accused. She denied it and said that she was illiterate. She was asked that accused wrote a letter to her from Jail. She denied. However, she said that a letter was sent to her 'jeeja'. It was the duty of defence to bring that letter on record at that stage and confront her with the same. This was not done. The accused could be easily manipulating a defence like this by getting letters written to him in the name of Nirmala. It is not shown that she is literate or can write. The trial Court has disbelieved this version of the accused and rightly so. It is clear that this appellant has been raising all sorts of defences. ( 11 ) THE accused produced Jamuna Bai to say that the prosecutrix had come to her sister for about 10-11 days to help her in harvesting the crop, but during that period no complaint was made to her of any sort. This, in no way creates dent in the story of prosecution. She could have been manipulated by accused. The prosecutrix and Vyas Narayan had stated that out of fear for the accused, they had to leave the village. So that this type of person the appellant is. He could easily manipulate Jamuna Bai and Jamuna Bai was not cited as prosecution witness. There was no need to do so nor any need to cite Mogra Bai as witness. ( 12 ) ALL the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are without weight. The finding of the learned trial Court that this accused trespassed into the house of Vyas Narayan to commit rape on Nirmala Bai is fully established. He committed rape also. This is established. It was a heinous act. He has been rightly convicted for offences punishable u/s. 450, I. P. C. and 376 (1), I. P. C. The conviction is confirmed. As regards the sentence no lenient view could be taken on this act of this accused irrespective of his age or whether he is first offender or not. The offence of rape is ordinarily committed by a young man, not by an old man. The sentence is in no way harsh. As regards the sentence no lenient view could be taken on this act of this accused irrespective of his age or whether he is first offender or not. The offence of rape is ordinarily committed by a young man, not by an old man. The sentence is in no way harsh. I uphold the same on both counts. The appeal totally fails and is dismissed. A warrant of confirmation shall be sent so that this appellant undergoes his sentence. The Trial Court has already ordered that the sentence of imprisonment on both counts shall run concurrently. Order accordingly. .