AJIT SINGH, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT Halla, the sole accused person in this case, has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months by the Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, vide judgment dated 16-12-1989 in Sessions Trial No. 12/89. The appellant has been found guilty of committing an offence of rape on Mst. Shakun Bai, on 16-11-1988 at about 8. 00 a. m. in her cattle house situated at her field, commonly known as "bandhwa Khet" which is about one kilometer from her residential house. Notice for enhancement of sentence was given to the appellant by this Court on 7-2-1990. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :- prosecutrix Shakun Bai (PW 8), appellant Halla and the material witnesses belong to village, Dargwan, within the limit of Satai Police Station in Chhatarpur district. Shakun Bai (PW 8) was married to one Ramdas of another village about two years prior to the date of incident and had come to her parents' place at the time of incident. According to Shakun Bai (PW 8), on 16-11-1988, at about 8. 00 a. m. as she was about to milk her cow in her cattle house, the appellant suddenly came inside and asked her to have sexual intercourse with him. She protested but it had no impact on him and he forcibly pulled her down on the floor, caught hold of her breasts, lifted her "sari" and thereafter had sexual intercourse with her against her consent. Shakun Bai (PW 8) resisted and cried for help, but the appellant overpowered her and he left only after completion of the act. On hearing her cries for help, Mathura (PW 7) came to her to whom she told about the incident. Shakun Bai (PW 8) returned to her house and narrated the incident to her mother, Parmi Bai (PW 3 ). At that time, the "sari" of Shakun Bai (PW 8) was soiled with mud. Shakun Bai (PW 8) had gone to bring milk under the instruction of her mother, Parmi Bai (PW 3 ). The field of appellant is adjacent to the field of Shakun Bai (PW 8 ). Shakun Bai (PW 8) along with her mother, Parmi Bai (PW 3) and cousin Sunkaiya Chamar, went to the Police Station, Satai, and lodged the First Information Report, Ex. The field of appellant is adjacent to the field of Shakun Bai (PW 8 ). Shakun Bai (PW 8) along with her mother, Parmi Bai (PW 3) and cousin Sunkaiya Chamar, went to the Police Station, Satai, and lodged the First Information Report, Ex. P12. Jageshwar Prasad (PW 6), Head Constable, recorded the report and registered crime No. 72/88 against the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Since Jageshwar Prasad (PW 6) found injuries on the person of Shakun Bai (PW 8) as she was complaining of pain, he referred her to District Hospital for her medical examination vide requisition memo, Ex. P8. ( 3 ) DR. Usha Khare (PW 2) examined Shakun Bai (PW 8) on 17-11-1988 and found the following injuries on her person vide her medical report, Ex. P6:-"an abrasion over right elbow surface brown in colour. Slight abrasion over left elbow brown in colour. Another abrasion over left knee brown in colour. Slight abrasion over lower lip. No injuries on private parts and breasts were found. Hymen old rupture. Opinion of rape cannot be given because she is habitual to intercourse. "dr. Usha Khare (PW 2) also prepared a sealed packet of Petticoat (Art. A) and Vaginal Smear Slide (Arts. B1 and B2) of Shakun Bai (PW 8) and handed over the same to the police for their chemical examination vide Ex. P9. ( 4 ) INVESTIGATING Officer, Ram Darsh Mishra (PW 9), seized a pair of nylon shoes from near the place of incident which belonged to the appellant vide Ex. P11. He arrested the appellant on 18-11-1988 vide arrest memo Ex. P13, and thereafter referred him for his medical examination vide Ex. P14. He also prepared a sealed packet of underwear of the appellant for its chemical examination vide Ex. P15. ( 5 ) DR. M. P. N. Khare, Assistant Surgeon (PW 1), took the X-ray plate, Ex. P5, of Shakun Bai (PW 8) and he has opined that her age was between 16 to 18 years. His report is Ex. P4. He also took the X-ray plates, Exs. P2 and P3, of the appellant and in his report, Ex. P1, he described his age to between 16 to 18 years. Ram Darsh Mishra (PW 9), after usual investigation, filed a charge-sheet in the Court. His report is Ex. P4. He also took the X-ray plates, Exs. P2 and P3, of the appellant and in his report, Ex. P1, he described his age to between 16 to 18 years. Ram Darsh Mishra (PW 9), after usual investigation, filed a charge-sheet in the Court. ( 6 ) THE Assistant Chemical Examiner of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), found presence of seminal stains and sperms on the Petticoat (Art. A) of the prosecutrix, as also on the Underwear (Art. C1) seized from the appellant. His report is Ex. P17. The said report also confirms the presence of seminal stains and sperms on the Vaginal Smear Slides (Arts. B1 and B2 ). ( 7 ) THE appellant, in his defence, pleaded that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. ( 8 ) THE trial Court, relying upon the evidence of prosecutrix Shakun Bai (PW 8) and partially relying upon the evidence of her mother Parmi Bai (PW 3) and Mathura (PW 7), convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as aforesaid. The trial Court also and relied upon the injury report, Ex. P6, of Shakun Bai (PW 8) and Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Report, Ex. P17. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the trial Court ought to have disbelieved the evidence of Shakun Bai (PW 8) as her evidence stands uncorroborated by her own mother Parmi Bai (PW 3 ). He further asserted that Dr. Usha Khare (PW 2) who examined Shakun Bai (PW 8) too has stated in her report, Ex. P6, that opinion of rape can't be given because she is habitual to sexual intercourse. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Dilip v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2001 SC 3049 : (2001 Cri LJ 4721 ). On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State argued that the appellant has rightly been convicted by the trial Court as there is overwhelming evidence against him on record. He also vehemently asserted that the sentence awarded to the appellant is too inadequate and hence the same deserves to be enhanced. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State argued that the appellant has rightly been convicted by the trial Court as there is overwhelming evidence against him on record. He also vehemently asserted that the sentence awarded to the appellant is too inadequate and hence the same deserves to be enhanced. ( 10 ) THE law is well settled that prosecutrix, in a sexual offence, is not an accomplice and there is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon and make basis of conviction unless corroborated in material particulars. However, the rule about the admissibility of corroboration should be present to the mind of the Judge. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gyan Chand (2001) 6 SCC 71 : (2001 Cri LJ 2548), it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court that conviction for an offence of rape can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstances such as the report of Chemical Examination, etc. if the same is found to be natural, trustworthy and worth being relied on. The Honourable Supreme Court further held (Para 13) :"if evidence of prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the Court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial Court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestaations. " ( 11 ) I have carefully perused the evidence of Shakun Bai (PW 8 ). She has deposed in her evidence that as she was about to milk her cow in the cattle house, the appellant suddenly came inside and asked her to have sexual intercourse with him. Her protests and warning to him went unheeded and he forcibly pulled her down on the floor, lifted her "sari" and thereafter had sexual intercourse with her against her consent. She has also deposed that she had resisted and cried for help but the appellant overpowered her and he left only after completion of the act. Her protests and warning to him went unheeded and he forcibly pulled her down on the floor, lifted her "sari" and thereafter had sexual intercourse with her against her consent. She has also deposed that she had resisted and cried for help but the appellant overpowered her and he left only after completion of the act. This evidence of Shakun Bai (PW 8) that she cried for help has been duly corroborated by Mathura (PW 7 ). He has deposed in his evidence that while he was in his field at a distance of about 15 ft. from the cattle house of Shakun Bai (PW 8), he did hear her cries but he did not give much attention to it and simply shouted back saying not to quarrel. He, however, after sometime went near the place of occurrence where he saw Shakun Bai (PW 8) crying and on asking she told him that appellant had caught hold of her. Mathura (PW 7) has further deposed that at that time he saw the "sari" of Shakun Bai (PW 8) soiled with mud and her face had small stains of blood. Shakun Bai (PW 8) has also deposed in her evidence that after the incident, Mathura (PW 7) had come to her and on his asking, she narrated about the incident to him. Shakun Bai (PW 8) has further deposed in her evidence that she reached her house crying all along and narrated the incident to her mother Parmi Bai (PW 3 ). Thereafter, Shakun Bai (PW 8) accompanied by her mother Parmi Bai (PW 3) and cousin Sunkaiya Chamar went to the Police Station and lodged the First Information Report, Ex. P12. ( 12 ) PARMI Bai (PW 3), mother of prosecutrix, for some reason, has turned hostile during her evidence in the Court, yet she has corroborated the evidence of Shakun Bai (PW 8) to the extent that she had gone to milk the cow from her cattle house situated in their field under her instructions and that she returned crying after sometime. She has also corroborated the evidence of Shakun Bai (PW 8) to the extent that she told her that appellant had entered the cattle house while she was about to milk the cow and insisted to have sexual intercourse with her. The evidence of Shakun Bai (PW8) has further been corroborated by the evidence of Dr. She has also corroborated the evidence of Shakun Bai (PW 8) to the extent that she told her that appellant had entered the cattle house while she was about to milk the cow and insisted to have sexual intercourse with her. The evidence of Shakun Bai (PW8) has further been corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Usha Khare (PW 2) and her injury report, Ex. P6, which reveals that she had abrasions on both of her elbows and one abrasion over her left knee. Not only this, she even had an abrasion over her lip. Apart from this, there is yet another corroborative evidence also in the form of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Report, Ex. P17, which confirms the presence of human sperms and seminal stains on the Petticoat (Art. A) and Vaginal Smear Slides (Arts. B1 and B2) of the prosecutrix as well as on the Underwear (Art. C1) of the accused. Mere opinion of Dr. Usha Khare (PW 2) that she could not say about the rape on Shakun Bai (PW 8) because she is used to sexual intercourse is of no consequence as Shakun Bai (PW 8) is a married girl. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that presence of seminal stains on the Petticoat and Vaginal Smear Slides of Shakun Bai (PW8) has no evidentiary value because she is a married girl, has also no merit, Shakun Bai (PW 8) was married to one Ramdas of another village about two years prior to the date of incident and had come to her parents' place alone at the time of incident. There is absolutely no iota of evidence or even a suggestion that her husband was with her either before or after the incident of rape on her. Apart from this, there is absolutely nothing on record to show as to why she will implicate the appellant and that too in the absence of any enmity. The evidence of Shakun Bai (PW 8) is substantially corroborated by the First Information Report, Ex. P12, which she lodged in the Police Station soon after the incident. Jageshwar Prasad (PW 6) has also deposed that he recorded the First Information Report as narrated by Shakun Bai (PW 8) and thereafter he referred her for medical examination as she had injuries on her person. P12, which she lodged in the Police Station soon after the incident. Jageshwar Prasad (PW 6) has also deposed that he recorded the First Information Report as narrated by Shakun Bai (PW 8) and thereafter he referred her for medical examination as she had injuries on her person. ( 13 ) THE case of Dilip v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2001 Cri LJ 4721) (supra), as relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, is distinguishable from the present case. In the said case, prosecutrix, was unmarried but was reported to be habitual of sexual intercourse and no sign of gang rape was found on her when she was medically examined. Furthermore, the incident allegedly took place in a heavily populated area and despite her raising hue and cry, no one allegedly came for her rescue. Furthermore, her evidence was found to be basically inform on account of being contradicted by the statement of her own Aunt, medical evidence and the report of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL ). On the other hand, the incident in the present case took place inside the cattle house situated away in the field and her cries were admittedly heard by Mathura (PW 7) who unfortunately did not respond in time. ( 14 ) THE defence has given suggestion in cross-examination for false implication of the appellant which, however, has not gone beyond being merely a suggestion. I find the prosecutrix Shakun Bai (PW 8) in the case as one on whose testimony, implicit reliance can be placed. The trial Court has committed no illegality in conviction the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 15 ) I have heard the arguments on behalf of appellant and respondent (State) on the question of sentence. The normal minimum sentence provided for punishment for rape is seven years and fine. The Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge has awarded the sentence of only 18 months rigorous imprisonment to the appellant essentially on the ground that appellant was 18 years of age at the time of incident and according to him, boys during that age, often venture into such act. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge has awarded the sentence of only 18 months rigorous imprisonment to the appellant essentially on the ground that appellant was 18 years of age at the time of incident and according to him, boys during that age, often venture into such act. I do not think that the person who commits such an act of rape on the helpless young girl can be sent away with a sentence of imprisonment for only 18 months. The victim in the case repeatedly requested the appellant to let her off and resisted to the best of her capability to save her honour but the appellant over powered her and left her only after satisfying his sexual lust. The dignity of a girl, in my opinion cannot be considered so casually as dealt by the learned Sessions Judge. I am not able to persuade myself to the limit of the sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial Court and it calls for drastic enhancement in the interest of administration of justice. I, therefore, enhance the sentence of the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/ -. In default of fine, the appellant shall further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. On the recovery of fine amount, the same shall be paid to the prosecutrix Shakun Bai (PW 8) by way of compensation. ( 16 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Conviction of the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained and the sentence is enhanced as aforesaid. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He shall surrender to his bail to serve out the enhanced sentence. The sentence which the appellant has already undergone during the trial shall, however, be remitted. Appeal dismissed. .