JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.2.1999 passed by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) and Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, that on 6.10.1997 Mst. Munni w/o Pappu aged 20 years resident of Mohanpura lodged a written report Ex. P.8, stating therein that while she was cutting grass in her field, accused Bharat Singh came there and made her to fall. When she raised an alarm and scuffled, accused pressed her breasts and bite her cheeks. Thereafter, he put off her 'Dhoti' and corned the blouse and forcibly committed rape on her. On hearing her cries, Baikunthi, wife of Vaniya Kachi, her husband and some others arrived there and saw accused Bharat Singh committing rape. She further alleged that accused also forcibly took away her two golden 'phool besar' of nose and silver ear-rings. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the police registered a case for offence under Sections 376 and 379, IPC vide FIR No. 437/97, Ex. P.9 and proceeded to invest gate the case. 4. During investigation, PW 6 Lallu Khan seized the 'petticoat' of the prosecutrix vide Ex. P.10. He also inspected the site on the next day of occurrence i.e. on 7.10.1997 and prepared site plan Ex. P.3, took in possession broken pieces of glass bangle and two ear-rings of silver vide Ex. P.11. He arrested the accused on 19.10.1997 vide arrest memo Ex. P.5. During investigation, the prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Vimlesh Garg (PW 2) who found following injuries on her body : 1. 5 x 3 cm. round teeth marks on left cheek. 2. 3 x 3 cm. round teeth marks on left cheek. 3. 3 x 3 cm. round teeth marks on right cheek. 4. Few scratch marks on left wrist. 5. The doctor opined that duration of injury was within 12 to 24 hours. It was also noticed that the victim was pregnant. The report of medical examination is Ex. P.2. The accused was also examined by PW 1 Dr. 3. 3 x 3 cm. round teeth marks on right cheek. 4. Few scratch marks on left wrist. 5. The doctor opined that duration of injury was within 12 to 24 hours. It was also noticed that the victim was pregnant. The report of medical examination is Ex. P.2. The accused was also examined by PW 1 Dr. R.S. Meena and he was found fit and competent to perform sexual intercourse. The report of which is Ex. P.I. The prosecutrix was also examined for determining her age. The report of which is Ex. P.4, according to which the age of the prosecutrix was above 19 years. 6. After completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the accused appellant under Section 376, IPC in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Badi who, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. 7. During trial, the prosecution, in support of its case examined PW 1 Dr. R.S. Meena, PW 2 Dr. Vimlesh Garg, PW 3 Dalip Singh, PW 4 Munni, PW 5 Baikunthi, PW 6 Lallu Khan, PW 7 Teliram, PW 8 Rajendra Singh, PW 9 Maharaj Singh and PW 10 Pappu and exhibited some documents. Thereafter, the Trial Court examined accused appellant under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The accused appellant did not choose to examine any witness in' his defence. After completion of trial, hearing Counsel for both the sides and on considering the material on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as aforesaid. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Publi Prosecutor and gone through the evidence and material on record. 9. The Trial Court relying upon the statements of prosecutrix Munni (PW 4), Baikuunthi (PW 5), Pappu (PW 10) and Dr. Vimlesh Garg (PW 2) found the accused appellant guilty of the offence under Section 376, IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him. 10. To appreciate the findings recorded by the Trial Court in holding the accused appellant guilty, I consider it appropriate to refer to the statements of the prosecution witness relevant to the case. 11. PW 4 Mst. Munni in her statement has stated that accused Bharat Singh came to her field, where she had gone for cutting grass and made her fall and forcibly committed rape on her. He pressed her both breasts and bite both cheeks. 11. PW 4 Mst. Munni in her statement has stated that accused Bharat Singh came to her field, where she had gone for cutting grass and made her fall and forcibly committed rape on her. He pressed her both breasts and bite both cheeks. On hearing her cries, her aunt-in-law Baikunthi (PW 5) and Pappu (PW 10) came there and witnessed the incident and lifted Bharat Singh lying on her. She further stated that Bharat Singh had a pistol (Katta) and he threatened her not to disclose the incident to any body, otherwise he will kill her. She had shown the injuries sustained by her during incident to the doctor at the time when she was medically examined. 12. PW 5 Baikunthi has stated that on hearing the cries from the side of field of Maharaj Singh (father-in-law of the prosecutrix) she went to the place of incident and saw accused Bharat Singh lying on Munni and committing rape on her. She stated that Pappu also came there and both of them separated Bharat Singh. She also stated that Bharat Singh showed Katta and threatened not to disclose anybody in the village, otherwise he will kill her. 13. PW 10 Pappu, husband of the prosecutrix has fully supported the statement of his wife and the statement of PW 5 Baikunthi. 14. PW 2 Dr. Vimlesh Garg who examined the prosecutrix has noted the injuries on both the cheeks and scratch marks, as mentioned above. She also found scratches on her breasts. She has deposed that the prosecutrix was pregnant by 7 / -8 months. In the report Ex. P.2 she has opined that there were no signs of intercourse, but attempt to rape cannot be ruled out. 15. The law is well settled on the point that the prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice of the crime and there is no rule of law that testimony cannot be acted without corroboration on material particulars and her testimony has to be appreciated on the principles of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness and further if the Court finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its case value it may search for evidence director circumstantial which would lend assurance to her testimony. 16. 16. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharwada Bhogin Bhai Hiriji Bhai v. State of Gujarat, 1983 Cr.L.J. 1096 , has observed that refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule is adding insult to injury. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court deprecated viewing evidence of such victim with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tainted with doubt, disbelief and suspicion. 17. In the case in hand, on a close scrutiny of the evidence discussed above, it is evident that the statement of the prosecutrix PW 4 Munni stands fully corroborated by the statements of two eye-witnesses PW 5 Baikunthi and PW 10 I apps who are none others but aunt-in-law and the husband of the prosecutrix respectively. Her statement further finds corroboration with the seizure of broken pieces of bangles, silver ear- rings and the struggle marks found at the scene of occurrence, as is evident from seizure memo of pieces of bangles, Ex. P.11 and the site plan Ex. P.3. The statement of the victim is also corroborated by the medical evidence, if read with the report Ex. P.2 and the statement of PW 2 Dr. Vimlesh Garg. The opinion of the doctor that rape was not committed on the prosecutrix within two days is not of much importance in the facts and circumstances of the case. It appears that the only fact that spermatozoa was not found in the vaginal discharge of the prosecutrix led the doctor to form an opinion that rape was not committed within two days. It is found only when there is semen discharge during the course of intercourse. It is not the case of the prosecution that the victim has stated about discharge of semen during intercourse by the accused. What the prosecutrix has stated is that accused committed rape on her and the eye-witnesses PW 5 Baikunthi and PW 10 I apps, certified her statement by categorically stating that they separated accused while he was performing intercourse with the victim. The testimony of the prosecutrix having corroboration in material particulars as discussed above is sufficient to record guilt against the accused. The testimony of the prosecutrix having corroboration in material particulars as discussed above is sufficient to record guilt against the accused. The prosecution, in my opinion, has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix became victim of sexual assault by the accused appellant and the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant of the offence charged with. 18. The Trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 376, IPC has sentenced him to undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. While awarding sentence, the fact of pregnancy of 7-8 months being in knowledge of the accused, he committed rape on the prosecutrix weighed with the Trial Court. Suffice it to say that no charge under Section 376(2)(e) was framed against the accused appellant about the commission of rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant. This incriminating circumstance was not at all put to the accused while he was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and therefore, this incriminating circumstance could not have been taken into consideration while awarding sentence by the Trial Court. 19. The minimum sentence prescribed for offence under Section 376, IPC is 7 years. In series of cases, the Apex Court as well as this Court while maintaining conviction under Sections 376, 366, 363, IPC have reduced the sentence to the term already undergone. I deem it proper to refer a recent decision of this Court in Dhoor Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) WLC (Raj.) 248 (UC) , wherein this Court while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376 and 366 has reduced the sentence of 7 years to the period already undergone i.e. 2 years and 1 month. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that ends of justice would meet if the sentence is reduced from 10 years to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment. 20. In the result, conviction of the appellant under Section 376, IPC is maintained with the modification on the question of sentence that the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced from 10 years' rigorous imprisonment to the period of 7 years. Remaining part of the order as to the payment of fine and the sentence in default of payment of fine, and also the amount of Rs. Remaining part of the order as to the payment of fine and the sentence in default of payment of fine, and also the amount of Rs. 4,000/- out of the fine imposed, if realised to be paid to the victim, is maintained. With this modification on the point of sentence, the appeal stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed with modification in sentence. *******