JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.7.1982 passed by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar convicting the appellant of offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentencing him to 2 years R.l. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment to further undergo 1 months R.l. The accused has further been convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. sentenced to 1 month's R.l. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 25.12.1981 a oral F.I.R. was lodged by Mst. Vidhya at Police Station, Chunawad at about --- a.m. stating interalia that in the morning her husband left house for gragging cattle, she after completing the domestic work went to the field alongwith her sister-in-law Bhagii. Bhagli while cutting the grass proceeded towards the field of Bhura Ram. She was working in the filed of Jatsingh. At the time of sunset, while she was in Killa No. 10 of Square No. 14, she saw that accused Jaisa Singh coming from his own field towards her. He caught and threw her on the ground. He then committed rape on her. She further alleged that her bangles were broken while she was resisting, she made a cry which attracted her sister-in-law. She thereafter, went to the house. In the night she informed her husband. In the night it was not possible to travel to the Police Station and, therefore, the information was lodged in the morning. The Police registered a case of offence under Section 376 & 323 I.P.C. and proceeded with the investigation. 3. The Police submitted challan against the accused person of offence under Section 376 & 323 I.P.C. The accused appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. In statement under Section 313 I.P.C. the accused stated that there are 2 groups in the village, one belongs to Gajjan Singh and the another belongs to Purshottam. The husband of the prosecutrix belongs to the Gajjan Singh's group whereas the accused appellant belongs to Purshottam's group. He stated that on account of group rivalry, he has been falsly implicated. The trial Judge relying upon the evidence of prosecutrix and the medical evidence, held the appellant guilty of offence under Section 376 & 323 I.P.C. and sentenced him as stated above. 4. He stated that on account of group rivalry, he has been falsly implicated. The trial Judge relying upon the evidence of prosecutrix and the medical evidence, held the appellant guilty of offence under Section 376 & 323 I.P.C. and sentenced him as stated above. 4. Assailing the judgment of conviction, it is submitted by Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant that, he has been falsely implicated on account of group rivalry. He has also tried to point out some inconsequential discrepancies in the prosecution case. He has invited my attention to Ex. 6 site plan and submitted that the condition of Kanak Plant does not indicates that in that area a lady was thrown on the ground and rape was committed on her. P.R P.W. 2 Vidhya has stated that while she was working in the field, at the sunset time the accused came to the field and caught her. He threw her on the ground. She unsuccessfully resisted, in which, her bangles were also broken. She has given all the details as to how the rape was committed. She also stated that she took a bite on his left arm. After returning home, she narrated the entire incident to her husband. She went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. Kachha and gagra which she was wearing at the time of incident, were also seized. Her statement is corroborated by the statement of Bhagii P.W. 4. She stated that on hearing the cries of Mst. Vidhya, she turned towards her and found that the accused Jaisa Singh was committing rape on her. P.W. 3 Dr. Rajendra Gupta has stated that he examined the prosecutrix Mst. Vidhya on 26.12.1981 and prepared the injury report Ex. 3. He noticed injuries on the neck and cheek. Another abrasion was noticed on the leg. However, he could not express any positive opinion with respect the rape as Mst. Vidhya was a married lady. P.W. 1 Dr. Ratan lal stated that he examined the accused on 29.1.1982. He found him competent for indulging in sexual intercourse. He also notices impressions of bite on left arm of the accused. He prepared the report Ex. 2. The prosecution proved presence of seminal stains on the cloths of the prosecutrix by the report of the Chemical Analyst Ex. 9. Naitram P.W. 7 stated that the broken bangles from the field were seized by him. He also notices impressions of bite on left arm of the accused. He prepared the report Ex. 2. The prosecution proved presence of seminal stains on the cloths of the prosecutrix by the report of the Chemical Analyst Ex. 9. Naitram P.W. 7 stated that the broken bangles from the field were seized by him. Thus the statement of the prosecutrix is corroborated by the statement of Bhagli and the injury on the person of the accused and the presence of broken bangles on the place of incident. 5. In this state of evidence, some discrepancies here and there and some probabilities suggested are so inconsequential that on that basis whole prosecution case cannot thrown. So far as the group rivalry is concern, even if it is accepted to be true, it is not appear creditable that she would get a false report lodged. 6. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant was of 21 years of age at the time of incident and as such it would not be proper to send him in jail after lapse of 18 years. He cited certain authorities wherein a lenient view has been taken and the sentence has been reduced to already undergone of one month or so. I am not inclined to adopt the said course. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant being of 21 years of age may be given benefit of probation. He has cited judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 1991 Cr.LJ. 595. I have read the said judgment. In the said case as the accused was of 18 years of age, the court observed that his case should have been dealt with under Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. in view of this, direction was given to send the accused to Borstal School for the period of 3 years. The case has no application to the facts of the case. In fact the provisions of 360 Cr.P.C. cannot be attracted when the offence is punishable above 7 years of imprisonment. The contention is accordingly rejected. 7. Consequently, there being no merit in the appeal the same is rejected. The appellant shall surrender to serve out the remaining sentence. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar is directed to issue warrant of arrest and send the accused to the jail to serve out the sentence.Appeal Dismissed. *******