JUDGMENT A.K. Mishra, J. 1. The appellant, having been convicted under Section 376, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years, fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for 3 months, has preferred present appeal before this Court. 2. Briefly stated prosecution case is that prosecutrix Shatrupabai daughter of Chetanbai had come in the morning of June 10th, 1988 at Rajnandgaon along with her mother to sell bundles of fuel wood. When they were sitting at a place with the bundles of fuel wood, accused approached them and settled each bundles for Rs. 10/-. He thereafter asked both (mother and daughter) to leave the bundles at his residence. Both, therefore, picked up the bundles on their head and proceeded with the accused. After some distance, accused asked Shatrupabai to sit there and he proceeded along with her mother Mst. Chetanbai. Leaving Chetanbai at some distance he again returned to Shatrupabai, took her in a school building and in a room there he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. As per the prosecution, the date of birth of the Prosecutrix being January 3rd, 1974, she was below 16 years of age at the time of incident. After committing sexual intercourse accused again took her to some distance with bundle of fuel wood and from there he dis-appeared. Sometime thereafter, both mother and daughter met each other, when Shatrupabai narrated the incident to her mother. Both of them immediately proceeded to police station where Shatrupabai prosecutrix lodged First Information Report Ex. P-3. 3. During investigation petticoat of Shatrupabai was seized. Seizure memo (Ex. P-12) was drawn into. Prosecutrix was referred for medical examination to District Hospital where she was examined by Dr. Smt. I. Chelani (P.W. 7), in which it was found that redness present in labia minora and labia majora and tenderness was present. Vaginal slides were prepared and handedover to constable. However, as per the medical opinion, no definite opinion about recent sexual intercourse could be given by the Doctor. Prosecutrix was referred for radiological examination. Report of examination (Ex. P-9) indicates that the age of the prosecutrix was approximately 16 years with 3 years margin on either side. 4. Accused was also referred for medical examination and was found capable of performing sexual intercourse. On June 12th, 1988 underwear (Article B) was seized from the accused. 5. Prosecutrix was referred for radiological examination. Report of examination (Ex. P-9) indicates that the age of the prosecutrix was approximately 16 years with 3 years margin on either side. 4. Accused was also referred for medical examination and was found capable of performing sexual intercourse. On June 12th, 1988 underwear (Article B) was seized from the accused. 5. In support of date of birth of the prosecutrix, school register, copy of entry (Ex. P-7) was placed on record. It was seized from Head Master Shri C.R. Sahu (P.W. 5). Transfer Certificate (Ex. P-2) was also seized from her father. In school admission register and Transfer Certificate, the date of birth is mentioned as January 3rd, 1974. 6. Petticoat of Shatrupabai, slides of vaginal smear and underwear of the accused were sent for chemical examination to the FSL. On petticoat of Shatrupabai and slides on chemical examination the presence of semen and human spermatozoa was confirmed. However, on underwear of the accused which was recovered after two days, human spermatozoa were not detected. 7. Accused abjured the guilt and contended that he was falsely implicated in the case. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is a case where Shatrupabai has been found to be above 16 years of age by the trial Court. The submission of learned counsel is that there was some dispute with respect to payment of amount of fuel wood, hence the accused has been falsely implicated in the case, who was present at the time of lodging of the report by the prosecutrix at police station, which goes to show his innocence. It was not possible at the relevant time to commit sexual intercourse, that too forcible in nature. 9. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that it is a case where offence of rape clearly made out. First Information Report was lodged promptly within four hours in the police station. He has further submitted that in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the accused had admitted that the prosecutrix had come to Rajnandgaon to sell fuel wood. He has further admitted that he had settled the price of both bundles. He has further admitted that he had asked them to take the bundle to his house. He has further admitted that both (prosecutrix and her mother) started going with him. 10. He has further admitted that he had settled the price of both bundles. He has further admitted that he had asked them to take the bundle to his house. He has further admitted that both (prosecutrix and her mother) started going with him. 10. Shatrupabai has clearly stated that accused had asked her to sit and took her mother ahead and therefore came alone and took her in a school where he committed sexual intercourse with her. She has clearly stated that the accused took her inside the room against her will and committed sexual intercourse with her. She has stated that she was crying from the very beginning. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has heavily relied on the statement of Shatrupabai (P.W. 2) that as accused did not purchase the fuel wood from them, false allegation has been levelled. Initially witness in Para 10 as to the suggestion put, stated 'Yes', but, on being questioned by the Court the suggestion was stated to be wrong. Another suggestion was put in question form in Para 20, both, the mother and daughter (prosecutrix) had agreed to perform sexual intercourse with the accused in case he purchased the fuel wood from each of them for Rs. 10/-. The prosecutrix answered to the said suggestion to be 'yes'. But the suggestion itself was put in highly derogatory manner. Both, mother and daughter had agreed to perform sexual intercourse. Suggestion was not only perverted, but, was such which ought not to have been allowed and goes to show the conduct of the accused by putting such suggestion in the cross-examination which is not his case. Suggestion was not only improbable and absurd but was highly derogatory to womenhood. Prosecutrix was poor, but, that does not mean that poverty has to be further insulted by making such reckless suggestion, even though, the prosecutrix had answered it to 'yes', but, shows that the prosecutrix did not understand the compound suggestion made in Para 20. Initially prosecutrix has denied the suggestion in Para 9. 12. It is amply clear from the statement of prosecutrix that her mouth was gagged by the accused. She has resisted. On her private part, swelling and tenderness was found. It was a clear case of commission of forcible sexual intercourse. It is not a case of commission of sexual intercourse with consent. 13. 12. It is amply clear from the statement of prosecutrix that her mouth was gagged by the accused. She has resisted. On her private part, swelling and tenderness was found. It was a clear case of commission of forcible sexual intercourse. It is not a case of commission of sexual intercourse with consent. 13. Chetan Bai (P.W. 3), mother of the prosecutrix has stated that the accused asked them to come along with him and then accused had taken her ahead and thereafter accused went away. Then she went to the place where she had left her daughter, but, she did not find her there. After sometime the girl came weeping and stated that sexual intercourse was committed by the accused and her mouth was gagged. Then they immediately went to police station to lodge the report after the commission of offence. A suggestion was put that the accused did not purchase the fuel wood which was expected as agreed. There was no occasion to purchase of fuel wood after commission of offence since Chetanbai and Shatrupabai had proceeded to police station. It was morning when the incident took place. School was not going on. At the relevant time no suggestion was put that teaching was taking place in the school at the relevant time or it was the school time. Presence of spermatozoa on the clothes of the prosecutrix and vaginal smear confirmed that she was subjected to sexual intercourse. 14. Prosecutrix was examined by the Doctor on 10-6-1988. The date of incident is also June 10th, 1988. Further, the medical examination report (Ex. P-11) of the accused indicates that no smegma was seen and he was found capable of performing sexual intercourse, supports the version of the prosecutrix. 15. Learned counsel has submitted that there is no corroboration of the version of the prosecutrix. She had lodged the report forthwith at the police station and the corroboration is not a rule in the offence of commission of rape as held in case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [ AIR 1996 SC 1393 ]. In the instant case there is medical corroboration of the version of the prosecutrix. On her clothes presence of human spermatozoa has been established and in the vaginal smear. Moreover, swelling was also found on her private part which goes to show that forcible sexual intercourse was performed with her. 16. In the instant case there is medical corroboration of the version of the prosecutrix. On her clothes presence of human spermatozoa has been established and in the vaginal smear. Moreover, swelling was also found on her private part which goes to show that forcible sexual intercourse was performed with her. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any error has been committed by the trial Court in convicting the appellant for the offence. Even if the finding recorded by the trial Court while discarding the evidence of school admission register which does not appear to be sound. It is accepted that the prosecutrix was above 16 years of age, even then offence of commission of rape is clearly made out. 17. Coming to the question of sentence, it is a case where minor poor girl was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by appellant Nehru who belongs to affluent class of the society. By occupation, he is shown to be goldsmith. He has tried to treat the woman as a commodity of sexual pleasure. It is a case where the prosecutrix who was young, had suffered a permanent scar for her entire life, from which she would not be able to come out. The offence of rape even destroyed the very personality of a girl of tender age. Incident took place in the year 1988. Hence, in the circumstances of the case, so as to impose fine in order to compensate the prosecutrix to some extent, the sentence from 7 years RI is reduced to 5 years RI, it would meet the ends of justice and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- is imposed under Section 357(1), Cr.P.C., on the appellant, failing which he shall have to undergo the sentence as was imposed by the trial Court. The amount of fine is directed to be deposited within a period of 4 months from the date of judgment which shall be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation.