JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.7.81 passed by Sessions Judge Shri Ganganagar convicting the appellant of offence under Section 376 IPC and sentencing to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment, to further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed during the trial is that on 11.8.80 at about 9 Am PW 1 Mst. Gurdev Kaur after providing food to her brother Baldeo Singh was returning from the field, when she reached near the field of Karnail Singh, he caught and took her to 'Khala'. He untied the knot of the salwar and committed rape on her. She made a cry, on which her brother Baldeo Singh and maternal grandfather Chhota Singh rushed to the spot. The information of the incident was immediately lodged at 2 PM. The police registered the case for offence under Section 376 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. After usual investigation, police laid a charge-sheet against the appellant of offence under Section 376 IPC. 3. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined seven witnesses and produced number of documents. The accused in his statement 313 Cr.PC. stated that he indulged in sexual intercourse with prosecutrix Gurdev Kaur with her consent. He stated that she used to talk to her everyday while returning from the field. On the date of incident, abruptly, her maternal grandfather arrived and saw them and therefore, she made a cry and made a false statement of rape. The learned Trial-Judge found the age of the prosecutrix of 20 years. On analysing the evidence he found, that there was no consent and as such held him guilty of offence under Section 376 IPC. 4. As the accused-appellant has admitted that act of sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix PW 1 Gurdev Kaur, the only question arises in the present case is, whether the said act was done with the consent of the prosecutrix or not. I have carefully read the statement of PW 1 Mst. Gurdev Kaur. She has stated that, while she was returning after providing food to her brother and when she reached near the field of the accused, the accused caught and took her in 'Khala'. He untied the knot of the salwar. She resisted on which her salwar was torned. I have carefully read the statement of PW 1 Mst. Gurdev Kaur. She has stated that, while she was returning after providing food to her brother and when she reached near the field of the accused, the accused caught and took her in 'Khala'. He untied the knot of the salwar. She resisted on which her salwar was torned. She made all efforts to escape, but she was overpowered by the accused. He took a bite on her cheek. She also stated that, on hearing the cries, brother PW/3 Baldeo Singh and maternal grandfather PW/2 Chhota Singh arrived there. She narrated the incident to them. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination on the basis of which, it can be said that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. The suggestion of consent has been denied by her. The statement is corroborated by the statement of PW 2 Chhota Singh and PW 3 Baldeo Singh. PW 4 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta has stated that on 12th August, 1980 he was posted at the medical jurist at Govt. Hospital Shri Ganganagar. He examined Mst. Gurdev Kaur, and found two injuries on her person. He has proved the medical report Ex.P 1. The report Ex.P 1 shows that the hymen was torned during the duration of 24 hours. With respect to the age, it was assessed approximate 20 years. The accused was also examined vide Ex.P. 5. The doctor on clinical examination, found nothing to suggest that the accused was not capable of sexual intercourse. The salwar was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, the report is on record as Ex:R 8. It shows that the human semen was detected on the salwar. In my considered view, the statement of PW 1 Mst. Gurdev Kaur is natural and trustworthy. Her statement is corroborated by the medical evidence and the statement of PW 2 Chhota Singh and PW 3 Baldeo Singh. It is significant to notice, that the injury report clearly indicate that hymen was torned during the period of 24 hours. This demostrates that she did not earlier indulged in sexual intercourse. The accused is a robust man of aged 45 years. Thus, I conclude that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the case of rape against the appellant. 5. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. The accused is a robust man of aged 45 years. Thus, I conclude that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the case of rape against the appellant. 5. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. This bail bonds stands cancelled. Appellant shall surrender to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar is directed to ensure that appellant undergoes the sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by this judgment.No merit in appellant Appeal dismissed. *******