ARUN MISHRA, J. ( 1 ) PRESENT appeal has been preferred by the appellant Jai Singh aggrieved by his conviction u/s. 376, I. P. C. and sentence of 7 years' R. I. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case is that the accused/appellant had obtained the employment for Ku. Sangeeta (PW-4) as a maid-servant in the house of Mst. Rukmani (PW-2 ). On 10-6-88 at about 7 p. m. the accused/appellant went to the house of Mst. Rukmani (PW-2) and asked Ku. Sangeeta (PW-4) whether she would go back to her house. The prosecutrix Ku. Sangeeta (PW-4) accompanied him on his bicycle. The accused took her towards the village tank. When enquired he told her that after visiting the village-tank, he would leave her to her house. On reaching near the tank, the accused/appellant offered her to sit near the tank for conversation. On refusal, the accused caught of her and fell her on the ground and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix received injuries on her right hand and burning sensation in her vagina. The accused left her after commission of sexual intercourse. She went to her house and immediately narrated the incident to her mother. Report of the incident was lodged vide Ex. P. 4 promptly at 10 p. m. on the same day. Prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. (Smt.) Kiran Katare (PW-3) and she found the following injuries on her person in the medical examination report Ex. P. 3. : (1) 6 very minor abrasions over bruise involving an area measuring 1/2" x 2" on the upper one third of right fore-arm dorssal aspect. (2) Minor abrasion, measuring 1/8 cm x 1/8 cm on inner aspect of right labia minora, lower side. (3) Two minor abrasions each measuring 1/8 cm x 1/8 cm on inner side of left labia minora. The tenderness in the Vagina was found. The injuries to Labia minora could be caused by sexual intercourse. No definite opinion could be given about sexual intercourse. ( 3 ) THE under-wears were also seized. Seminal stains and human spermatozoa have been found on the under-wears. The prosecutrix was further subjected to radiological examination. Dr. M. L. Agrawal (PW-6) conducted the X-ray examination and opined that the lower and upper ends of radius and ulna were not fused and as per his report Ex. P. 6 the age of prosecutrix Ku Sangeeta (PW. Seminal stains and human spermatozoa have been found on the under-wears. The prosecutrix was further subjected to radiological examination. Dr. M. L. Agrawal (PW-6) conducted the X-ray examination and opined that the lower and upper ends of radius and ulna were not fused and as per his report Ex. P. 6 the age of prosecutrix Ku Sangeeta (PW. 4) was found to be below 15 years. ( 4 ) ACCUSED abjured the guilt and contended that he was falsely implicated. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant Shri Ahdulla Usmani has strenously urges that it is a case where there was no sexual intercourse. Medical evidence is not definite about it. He has further submitted that in the vagina smear slides presence of human spermatozoa was not found and as such it was not a case of sexual intercourse. It is also his alternative submission that since more than 12 years have passed, it would not be proper to send the appellant to imprisonment again as he has settled his life. Counsel placed reliance on apex Court decision for leniency in the sentence, in case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manage Ram, AIR 2000 SC 2798 : (2000 Cri LJ 4027 ). ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the State Shri Vivek Awasthy has supported the reasoning and contended that no leniency is called for merely by lapse of time. It is a case where marks of violence have been found on the person of the prosecutrix. There was huge difference in the age. The age of the prosecutrix was below 15 years and accused was 28 years at the relevant time and as such ratio of the decision of apex Court does not apply in the present case. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant calls for no interference in the present appeal. The injuries have been found on the person of prosecutrix. Six very minor abrasions over bruise involving an area measuring 1/2" x 2" on the upper one third of right fore-arm dorsal aspect and minor abrasion on inner aspect of right labia minora, lower side and two minor abrasions on inner side of left labia minora were found. There was presence of human spermatozoa and seminal stains on the under-wears as per report Ex. P. 10. Dr. There was presence of human spermatozoa and seminal stains on the under-wears as per report Ex. P. 10. Dr. Smt. Kiran Katare (PW-3) has opined that there was tenderness in the private part of the prosecutrix. The hymen was not ruptured. But, simply non-rupture of hymen does not indicate that the sexual intercourse was not committed. The prosecutrix herself stated that the accused has committed sexual intercourse. Injuries have been found on her private part. Penetration was definitely there, how much deep it was is not relevant. There is nothing to disbelieve the version of the prosecutrix Sangeeta (PW-4) aged below 15 years. In the rape cases, the version of the prosecutrix is entitled to great weight. There is nothing to discard her deposition in the instant case. The first information report has been lodged promptly. The version of the prosecutrix Ku. Sangeeta is supported by Mst. Faggobai (PW-5), her mother that she came weeping in the house and informed about the incident and complained of the same to Rukmani (PW-2 ). Dr. M. L. Agrawal (PW-5) has clearly proved his report and has stated that there was no fusion of lower and upper ends of radius and ulna. Thus, she was definitely below 15 years of age. There is nothing to discard the report ofDr. M. L. Agrawal (PW-6) and his deposition. The accused on being medical examination was found capable of committing sexual intercourse, by Dr. A. K. Diwakar (PW-1 ). No mileage can be made out by hostile deposition of Mst. Rukmani (PW-2 ). The crime-graph of offence against women in India is on rise. The rape is such an offence which throws scar on entire life of prosecutrix and her entire personality is deranged by that and simpliciter lapse of time during the pendency of the appeal cannot come to rescue the appellant for not sending him to imprisonment again. The decision in case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mange Ram, (2000 Cri LJ 4027) (SC) (supra) is distinguishable. In that case, both the prosecutrix and the accused were related and both were teenagers with difference of about 2-3 years and evidence showing no marks of violence at all on any part of body of prosecutrix. But, in the instant case there was no such relation between the accused and the prosecutrix. There was difference of age of 13 years. There are signs of violence. But, in the instant case there was no such relation between the accused and the prosecutrix. There was difference of age of 13 years. There are signs of violence. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, considering the fact that compensation has not been ordered and fine does not form part of sentence, it is considered appropriate to direct payment of compensation also out of the fine amount. In the instant case period of imprisonment is reduced from 7 years' R. I. to 5 years' R. I. and the appellant is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R. I. for two years. The amount of fine be deposited within six months from the date of the present judgment. The amount of fine so deposited be disbursed to the prosecutrix. ( 9 ) IN the result the conviction of the appellant is upheld u/s. 376, I. P. C. He is sentenced to 5 years' R. I. and fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall have to undergo 2 years' R. I. The amount of fine be deposited within six months from the date of present judgment and same be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation. ( 10 ) WITH the aforesaid modification the appeal is disposed of. Order accordingly. .