JUDGMENT : 1. On 10.01.1997, Deepa, a young girl of 14 years committed suicide. According to prosecution, that was the aftermath of a rape committed by Sunil Kumar Gupta, the accused-appellant. On the basis of FIR registered and investigation undertaken, materials were collected by the investigating agency and charge-sheet was placed charging the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC). The accused pleaded innocence during trial and submitted that because of business rivarly a false case was foisted against him. The Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa found the accused guilty and convicted him under Sections 376 and 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 7 years respectively. A fine of Rs.5,000/- on each count was also imposed with default stipulations. An appeal was carried before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. By the impugned order, the conviction and sentences were maintained. 2. Mr. Jana Kalyan Das, learned counsel appearing as Amicus-Curiae for the accused-appellant submitted that the medical evidence is at variance with the oral testimonies and a case of rape is clearly ruled out when one reads the evidence of PW-11, the Doctor who conducted the postmortem. He further submitted that both the Trial Court and the High Court have not analysed the factual position in the proper perspective and has ignored a vital piece of evidence about business rivalry and disputes which would have mitigated the circumstances in favour of the accused. In response, Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the State-respondent submitted that both the Trial Court and the High Court have analysed the evidence and have correctly concluded that the accused was guilty of the offences for which he was charged. 3. We have carefully gone through the materials on record and perused the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court. In our considered view, the conclusions about the guilt of the accused do not suffer from any infirmity to warrant our interference. However, we find that sub-section (2) of Section 376, IPC has no application to the facts of the case as the girl was, according to prosecution, more than 14 years of age. In our considered view, the conclusions about the guilt of the accused do not suffer from any infirmity to warrant our interference. However, we find that sub-section (2) of Section 376, IPC has no application to the facts of the case as the girl was, according to prosecution, more than 14 years of age. That being the position, taking into fact the period of incarceration already suffered (which is stated to be close to seven years), we reduce the sentence so far as the offence relatable to Section 376 is concerned, to 7 years. The sentence imposed in respect of Section 306 IPC is maintained. The fines imposed along with the default stipulations, do not warrant any interference. In case the fines imposed have been or are deposited, the same shall be paid to the father of the victim. 4. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. 5. We record our appreciation for the fair manner in which Mr. Jana Kalyan Das, learned Amicus-Cuaie appearing for the appellant and Mr. R. P. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the State conducted the case.