JUDGMENT The accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 14.10.87 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas, camp Court Kannod, in S.T. No. 21/86 whereby he was convicted u/s 376 of the IPC and sentenced to five years R.I. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 16.12.85 at 6 p.m. the prosecutrix Imartibai (PW 1) was in her 'Tapra' (hut) situated in her field and was looking after her cotton-crop. The appellant came there and threw her on a cot, raised her petticoat and inserted his male organ into her vagina. She cried, hearing which Dashrath (PW 7), Kishanlal (PW 3) and Udaisingh (PW 4) came there. The saw the appellant running from the hut. The prosecutrix told them that the appellant had committed rape on her. They also saw blood coming from her private part and blood stains on her 'Ghaghra' as well as on 'Godri' (quilt). She was taken to her house where she narrated this incident to her father Ishwarsingh (PW 2). Police Station Satwas was 30 kms. away from village Nimlay, therefore, FIR Ex. P-1 was lodged on 17.12.85 at P.S. Satwas which was recorded by S.H.O. Hemendrasingh (PW 9). Dr. Smt. Sarla Akolkar examined her on the same day. She found complete rupture of hymen. There was bleeding at orifice and tenderness, vagina was full of blood clots vide report Ex. P-4. Her petticoat was sealed. She was also examined for ascertainment of her age which was estimated below 16 years. The Investigating officer inspected the spot and prepared spot map Ex. P-6. The appellant was arrested on 20.12.85. He was examined by Dr. Ramesh Chand Verma (PW 6) who found him capable of committing sexual intercourse vide report Ex. P-3. He also found smegma on the glans penis of the appellant. The petticoat and Godri of the prosecutrix were seized by Investigating officer and were sent to FSL Sagar for chemical examination. The chemical examiner Serologist opined that the petticoat and Godri were stained with human blood. After investigation, challan was filed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and false implication. The learned Trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. Hence, this appeal. Shri Shukla, LC for the appellant, submitted that there was enmity between the parents of the prosecutrix and the appellant and that is the reason why he has been falsely implicated. After investigation, challan was filed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and false implication. The learned Trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. Hence, this appeal. Shri Shukla, LC for the appellant, submitted that there was enmity between the parents of the prosecutrix and the appellant and that is the reason why he has been falsely implicated. He further submitted that the statement of prosecutrix is not reliable as it is full of contradiction and suffers from exaggeration. The so-called eye-witnesses are made up witnesses and, therefore, the appellant should be acquitted. Shri Verma. GA supported the impugned judgment and contended that the statement of the prosecutrix has been corroborated by medical evidence and further by three eye-witnesses who saw the appellant running from the spot. I considered the arguments advanced by both sides and perused the record. It has come in the evidence of prosecutrix Imartibai (PW 1) that on the date of incident at 6 p.m. she was looking after her cotton-crop. The appellant came there and forcibly threw her on the cot. raised her petticoat and inserted his male organ into her vagina. She cried. hearing which her brother Udaisingh, Kishanlal and Dashrath came there. She narrated the incident to them. She went to her house and related the incident to her father Ishwarsingh. Dashrath (PW 7), Kishanlal (PW 3) and Udaisingh (PW 4) corroborated the statement of the prosecutrix. These witnesses stated that they heard shouts, hearing which they proceeded towards the hut of prosecutrix, they saw the appellant running from the hut. They saw the prosecutrix lying there, blood was coming from her private part. They also saw blood on her 'Ghaghra' and 'Godri'. It is true that some contradictions and omissions have occurred in her testimony but they are of minor nature. She deposed that she had bitten the appellant's finger and scratched him. But Doctor Verma who examined the appellant on 22.12.85 did not find any injury on the body of the appellant. In my opinion, on account of this, the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be discarded. The sustaining of injuries by scratching depends on the size of nails and other factors. She did not state that blood came from the finger of the appellant. The prosecutrix deposed that she was examined by lady Doctor. Her evidence is fully corroborated by medical evidence. Dr. The sustaining of injuries by scratching depends on the size of nails and other factors. She did not state that blood came from the finger of the appellant. The prosecutrix deposed that she was examined by lady Doctor. Her evidence is fully corroborated by medical evidence. Dr. Shri Niwas Vaidya (PW 10) and Dr. N.K. Dube (PW 8) proved the medical report Ex. P-4 prepared by Dr. Smt. Sarla Akolekar who died during the pendency of the trial. She had examined the prosecutrix. According to report Ex. P-4. the prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Smt. Akolekar on 17.12.85 at 2 p.m. She found injuries on the private part of the prosecutrix. It was bleing. Hymen was completely ruptured. Vagina was full of blood-clots. The petticoat and Godri (quilt) were seized and sent to FSL for chemical examination. The chemical examiner and serologist confirmed human blood on them vide report Ex. P-10. Her statement also stands corroborated by FIR Ex. P-1 which was lodged by the prosecutrix and recorded by SHO Hemendra Singh (PW 9). The appellant was arrested after six days of the incident. It is also true that the Doctor found smegma on his glans penis. The find of smegma is proof of not having committed intercourse within 24 hours. It was found after six days of the incident and, therefore, it has no value. It is true that Udaisingh is the brother of the prosecutrix and Dashrath is the son of her father's elder brother but on the ground of near relationship their statements cannot be discarded. Kishanlal (PW 3) is an independent witness. It was argued that there was enmity between the parents of the prosecutrix and the appellant, therefore, he has been falsely implicated. This argument does not appear to be acceptable. From the medical and other evidence, it is proved that the prosecutrix was raped. It does not stand to reason that she will allow the real culprit go scot free and falsely implicate the appellant. As stated earlier, the statement of the prosecutrix has been corroborated by medical evidence. Her hymen was ruptured, blood was found on her clothes and Godri. Her evidence further got corroboration from three witnesses Udaisingh, Kishanlal and Dashrath and FIR. In view of this, there appears no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecutrix. As stated earlier, the statement of the prosecutrix has been corroborated by medical evidence. Her hymen was ruptured, blood was found on her clothes and Godri. Her evidence further got corroboration from three witnesses Udaisingh, Kishanlal and Dashrath and FIR. In view of this, there appears no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecutrix. In my opinion, the learned Trial Judge rightly put reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix and held that the appellant committed rape on her. In alternatively it was agrued that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. But the prosecutrix Imartibai was minor at the time of incident. She stated her age to be 15 years. The version of her father Ishwarsingh (PW 2) is that she was about 10 years old. According to medical report Ex. P-4. Dr. Akolekar estimated her age to be 10-11 years. X-ray examination also reveals her age to be below 16 years. Even otherwise, from the statement of prosecutrix no such inference can be drawn. Had she been consenting party, she would not have made alarm and cry. In view of above, the appeal is without substance, deserves to be dismissed, it is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Judge is confirmed. The appellant is on bail, he shall surrender before the CJM Dewas on or before 16.2.99 for suffering jail-sentence. The period of incarceration shall be given set-off u/s 428 of the CrPC.