JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the impugned order dated 30.1.1999 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No. 62/98 whereby, the appellant was convicted to undergo 10 years R.I. with a fine of र 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine further RI for 6 months was awarded to the appellant for offence punishable under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that one Ram Prasad son of Devu, by caste Mali, resident of Bhamdoli lodged a written report vide Ex.P-1 at Police Station Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur alleging that his daughter Kanchan (prosecutrix) aged about 8-9 years on 7.11.1992 had gone to jungle to graze cattle when, at about 3-4 P.M. accused-appellant Raju came there and raped her. On cries being raised by the prosecutrix two witnesses namely; Kajod (PW8) and Jagram (PW3) came to the spot and found the said minor girl profusely bleeding. In the meantime, accused Raju had already fled from the place of occurrence. These two witnesses brought the minor girl Kanchan to her home. On the basis of the written report (Ex.P-1) lodged by Ram Prasad, father of the prosecutrix-Kanchan, an FIR was registered with P.S. Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur vide FIR No. 194/92 (Ex.P-10) for offences punishable under Section 376 IPC. Police started investigation and during the course of investigation, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its' case examined PW1 Kanchan, PW2 Ram Prasad, PW3 Jagram, PW4 Ram Kishore, PW5 Dr. Pritam Chand Gupta, PW6 Dr. Hukam Sain Meena, PW7 Subhash Chand, PW8 Kajod, PW9 Urmila Dwivedi and PW10 Amar Singh and also relied upon the documents vide Ex.P1 to Ex. P13. 3. The statement of the accused were also recorded under Section 313, G.P.C. Though, the accused denied the prosecution story but did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal. 4. Pritam Chand Gupta, PW6 Dr. Hukam Sain Meena, PW7 Subhash Chand, PW8 Kajod, PW9 Urmila Dwivedi and PW10 Amar Singh and also relied upon the documents vide Ex.P1 to Ex. P13. 3. The statement of the accused were also recorded under Section 313, G.P.C. Though, the accused denied the prosecution story but did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal. 4. In her statement made before the Court, the prosecutrix has specifically deposed that on the day of occurrence i.e. 7.11.1992 when she had gone to jungle to graze the cattle then, at about 3-4 P.M. Raju, the accused whom the prosecutrix identified in Court, came to the field and forcibly took her away into the crops standing in the fields and committed sexual intercourse against her wishes, as a result of which, she started profusely bleeding from her private parts. She further deposed that on her hues and cries two witnesses namely Jagram (PW3) and Kajod (PW8) came to the spot for her rescue but, in the meantime the accused had already fled from the spot. Both the witnesses took her to the hospital where she was medically examined. The report regarding this incident was lodged by her father Ram Prasad with P.S. Bonli, Sawai Madhopur vide Ex.P-1. Prosecutrix in her statement has further confirmed injury marks on her person caused by the accused-appellant. The police had effected seizure of her clothes which smeared with blood stains and had also prepared a site plan vide Ex.P-2. 5. The above statement of the prosexutrix is fully corroborated by the statement of PW3 Jagram son of Kaluram who has specifically deposed in his statement made before the trial Court that on the date of occurrence at about 3-4 P.M. he was working in his fields when, he heard the cries of the prosecutrix. Upon hearing the hues and cries of the prosecutrix, he alongwith Kajod (PW8) rushed to the fields of one Nanu Singh where they had seen accused-Raju committing rape on the person of Kumari Kanchan- prosecutrix. By seeing Jagram (PW3) and Kajod (PW8), accused-Raju had immediately fled from the place of occurrence. Upon hearing the hues and cries of the prosecutrix, he alongwith Kajod (PW8) rushed to the fields of one Nanu Singh where they had seen accused-Raju committing rape on the person of Kumari Kanchan- prosecutrix. By seeing Jagram (PW3) and Kajod (PW8), accused-Raju had immediately fled from the place of occurrence. Both the witnesses who are independent and reliable witnesses had come to the rescue of the victim-Kumari Kanchan who had categorically stated in their statement that they had seen the accused running away from the place of occurrence and they had also deposed regarding the act of sexual intercourse having been committed on the person of Kumari Kanchan by accused-Raju. They had also deposed that the clothes of Kumari Kanchan were smeared with blood and that they had taken the victim to her father Ramprasad (PW2) and narrated the entire incident to him. Ramprasad (PW2) in his statement made before the trial Court has also corroborated the version of PW3 (Jagram) and PW8 (Kajod). In his statement, Ramprasad (PW2) deposed that he alongwith her daughter Kumari Kanchan had gone to the Police Station Bonli, Sawaimadhopur for lodging the report. 6. From the perusal of the medical evidence of Dr. Urmila Dwivedi who had examined the prosecutrix-Kanchan (PW1) on 7.11.1992, the Doctor has opined that there were visible marks of injuries on Vaginal Orphisis Perinimum of the prosecutrix. With regard to determination of the age of the prosecutrix, she was referred to Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre Bonli, Sawai Madhopur who after taking the X-ray of the prosecutrix vide MLR No. 200/dt. 7.11.1992 (Ex.P-10) has opined the age of the prosecutrix above 10 years and below 12 years. That apart, the prosecutrix was also referred to Department of Radiology, General Hospital Sawai Madhopur for her Radiological Examination which after radiologically examining the prosecutrix vide its Report dated 12.11.1992 (Ex.P-11) also determined the age of the prosecutrix above 10 years and below 12 years. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the relevant evidence from the summoned record. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the relevant evidence from the summoned record. Prima-facie, I am of the considered view that prosecutrix Kumari Kanchan (PW1) who was admittedly a minor having the age of above 10 years and below 12 years on the day of occurrence and the statement of the prosecutrix is not only fully corroborated by two independent and reliable witnesses namely; Jagram (PW3) and Kajod (PW8) but also from the Medical opinion of Dr. Urmila Dwivedi (PW9) posted at Govt. Hospital at Bonli Sawaimadhopur who has after medically examining the prosecutrix opined that Kumari Kanchan is a minor and that there are visible marks of injuries of Vaginal Orphisis Perinium on the person of Kumari Kanchan. Apart from that the age of the prosecutrix was also determined above 10 years and below 12 years vide MLR No. 200 dated 7.11.1992 (Ex.P10) and report of the Radiologist vide Ex.P-11 on the record. Hence, I have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the prosecutrix was admittedly a minor on the day of occurrence and she was subjected to rape by the accused-appellant Raju punishable under Section 376 IPC. Hence, the question of her consent doesn't arise and same is ruled out. I do not find any justification for interfering with the well reasoned findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 8. As a result of above discussion, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned-judgment/order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur in Sessions Case No. 62/98, by which the accused-appellant was convicted to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of र 5000/- and in default of payment of fine further RI for 6 months.Hence, the appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******