JUDGMENT 1. -Appellant was the accused on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar bearing Sessions Case No. 5/1996. He was found guilty under Sections 376 and 323 IPC, convicted and sentenced thereunder to undergo seven years R.l. and one month Rigorous imprisonment respectively. It was also directed that sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by the said judgment, action for filing the instant appeal has been resorted to. 3. Brief resume of the facts is that prosecutrix Kumari Santosh Bai (for short the prosecutrix) along with her father on November 2, 1995 went to Police Station (Jhalawar) and narrated orally that in the morning at around 7-8 a.m. she had gone for grazing her buffaloes near river Kalisindh. At about 11 a.m. accused appellant Kanwar Lal (for short the accused) came there and asked her to sleep with him. She declined and requested him not to persuade her but he slept her and forcibly took the nearby heap of fodder and ravished her thereafter he rushed towards the river leaving her there. She came weeping towards her field where she found her father to whom she narrated the whole incident. After hearing the narration her father also started weeping. The Police Station Raipur registered a case under sections 376 and 323 IPC and investigation commenced. The investigation that followed resulted in charge sheet, a trial and eventually in a conviction based substantially on the testimony of the prosecutorix. 4. I have heard Mr. N.A. Naqvi, learned counsel appearing for the accused and Mr. S.M. Podar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record. Scathing criticism of the impugned judgment was made by the learned counsel by raising various points. It was canvassed that there was no convicting and acceptable evidence to show that the prosecutrix was raped. Mr. Naqvi learned counsel stated that the accused was falsely implicated on account of enmity between the parties with regard to a dispute of land and to offence under sections 376 and 323 IPC was made out. It was lastly contended that if the court is of the view that offence is committed then looking to the young age of the accused, sentence awarded to him may be reduced. 5. On the other hand Mr. It was lastly contended that if the court is of the view that offence is committed then looking to the young age of the accused, sentence awarded to him may be reduced. 5. On the other hand Mr. S.M. Podar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State supported the impugned judgment and contended that a heinous offence was committed by the accused and he does not deserve any sympathy. 6. In view of the submissions made before me I proceed to scrutinise the evidence. 7. PW. 7, prosecutrix Santosh deposed that she had gone on the date of occurrence for grazing the buffaloes. She was all alone. There the accused slept her and after shutting her mouth committed rape on her by raising her skirt. She persuaded the accused to leaves her but he did not agree and accomplished the illegal act. Thereafter she rushed to her father and narrated the whole story. She was cross examined but nothing could be elicited from the cross examination. PW. 8 Mangilal corroborated the statement of RW. 7 Santosh. He deposed that Santosh is his daughter and she intimated him on the date of the occurrence that accused Kanwar lal committed rape on her. Thereafter he took Santosh to the Police Station and report was lodged. He also stated that age of Santosh on the date of occurrence was between 13-14 years. PW. 6 Dr. Ramesh Chand Dube deposed that he medically examined Santosh and according to medical report age of Santosh was between 14 to 16 years on the date of occurrence. P.W. 10 Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Golecha was posted as Medical Officer on November 2. 1995. He examined prosecutrix Santosh and found three to four abrasions measuring 1 to 2 cm. on her breast. All the abrasions were fresh and blood was oozing from them. At the time of examination of Santosh was frightened and was weeping. She could not walk properly. Her skirt was torn. There was swelling on lips and abrasions on her face and cheek. Her skirt was dumped with pieces of grass and mud. Possibility of spots of semen on her skirt was also appeared. On her vaginal examination Dr. Golecha found swollen on her vulva and there was a pain in the vulva. No injury was found inside the vagina but there were abrasions. Dr. Her skirt was dumped with pieces of grass and mud. Possibility of spots of semen on her skirt was also appeared. On her vaginal examination Dr. Golecha found swollen on her vulva and there was a pain in the vulva. No injury was found inside the vagina but there were abrasions. Dr. Golecha was of the view that she was recently raped as fresh discharge was found in the vagina. Dr. Golecha also examined accused Kanwar Lal and opined that he was competent to commit sexual intercourse. The prosecution also examined RW. 1 Amir Mohammed, PW 2 Nasir Mohammed, RW. Kailash, RW. 8 Mangilal, RW. 9 Bhagwan Lal, P.W. 11 Ranveer Singh, Investigating Officer in support of its success. The testimony of these witnesses inspires confidence and the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations made against him. He stated that all the witnesses did not speak truth. He was falsely implicated in the case because of old enmity in connection with the dispute of his land. The accused examined defence witnesses Radhey Shyam as DW 1 and Ganpat Lal as D.W. 2. Radhey Shyam D.W. 1 deposed that Santosh was threatening the accused that she would implicate him. He also corroborated that thereafter Santosh went to her house with tears in her eyes. Thereafter she along with her father and brother had gone to Police Station. This witness explained that threatening was given by Santosh to the accused on the ground that buffaloes of accused entered into the field of Santosh. DW 2 Ganpatlal also deposed that Santosh and Kanwar Lal were exchanging abuses. Santosh was threatening that she would make a report in the Police Station. When this witness asked Kanwarlal as to what had happened, Kanwar Lal replied that cattle's of Santosh Bai entered into field of Kanwar Lal and on account of this, the dispute had taken place. I am not persuaded to agree with the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the accused that he was falsely implicated. 8. When this witness asked Kanwarlal as to what had happened, Kanwar Lal replied that cattle's of Santosh Bai entered into field of Kanwar Lal and on account of this, the dispute had taken place. I am not persuaded to agree with the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the accused that he was falsely implicated. 8. In Bhoginbhai Hirjibai v. State of Gujrat ( AIR 1983 SC 753 ) , their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded thus- "a girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracised by the society or being looked down upon by the society including her own family members relatives, friends and neighbours. She would have to brave the whole world. She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. If she is unmarried, she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with a suitable match from a respectable or acceptable family." 9. In view of these factors, it can be observed that the victim and their relatives are not too keen to bring the culprit to book, when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light. There is a built in assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. 10. In the case on hand the prosecutrix shortly after the alleged rape reacted to the crime and intimated the whole story to her father. The statement of the prosecutrix that she intimated the whole incident to her father is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. This deposition of the prosecutrix is also corroborated by medical report. According to which she 14 to 16 years and on her examination Dr. Golecha found injuries on her cheeks, lips, breast and vulva. Therefore the prosecution has proved the offence under section 323 and 376 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 11. This deposition of the prosecutrix is also corroborated by medical report. According to which she 14 to 16 years and on her examination Dr. Golecha found injuries on her cheeks, lips, breast and vulva. Therefore the prosecution has proved the offence under section 323 and 376 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 11. So far as the last argument of the learned counsel of the accused is concerned that looking to the young age of the accused lenient view may be taken, I intend to refer the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rafiq v. State of U.P ( AIR 1981 SC 559 ) . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded thus "When a woman is ravished what is inflicted is not merely physical injury but the deep sense of some deathless shame." 12. The occurrence of rape anywhere in the society is the offence not only against an individual but it shatters the social fabric, destroys poise of the milieu and ruins the harmony of the atmosphere. In Antulay's case ( AIR 1984 SC 718 ) it was indicated that rape is the offence not against the victim alone but offence against whole society. 13. The learned counsel Mr. N.A. Naqvi, placed reliance on Phul Singh v. State of Haryana (1980 Cr.L.J. Page 8) in which it was held that looking to the age of the accused who was in his early twenties and was not a habitual offender and signs of repentance were seen and the family of the accused and victim being closely related, reduction of sentence was justified and in that case sentence was reduced from four years to two years rigorous imprisonment. But in Rafiq v. State of U.P (supra) exactly one year after the pronouncement in Phul Singh v. State of Haryana (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court when request for reduction of sentence was made, observed as under: "Counsel submitted that a 7 year sentence was too severe. No because, as we have stated earlier, rape for a woman is deathless shame and must be dealt with as the gravest crime against human dignity. No interference on the score of culpability or quantum of punishment is called for in the circumstances." 14. Thus I am not inclined to take a lenient view and reject the argument advanced before me in respect or reduction of sentence. 15. No interference on the score of culpability or quantum of punishment is called for in the circumstances." 14. Thus I am not inclined to take a lenient view and reject the argument advanced before me in respect or reduction of sentence. 15. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Judgment passed by the learned trial court is hereby confirmed.Appeal dismissed. *******