MUKTESHWAR PRASAD, J. Accused Balvir, son of Prem Singh Jatav, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 24-7-1981 passed by Sri Iqramul Bari, the then IV Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor in S. T. No. 496 of 1980 whereby he convicted Balvir under Section 354 I. P. C. and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. In default, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months. Out of the fine, realised Rs. 500 was directed to be paid to Km. Saroj as compensation. 2. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are as under. 3. Accused Balvir and informant Jagram were residents of village Katpur, Police Station Nangal, District Bijnor in the year 1979. On 10-5-1979, P. W. 3 Jagram, father of Km. Saroj, was away from his house in connection with his Pheri business and his wife Smt. Kalawati and their children, including Km. Saroj, were present at their house. Jagram could not return home on 10-5-1979 and he reached home in the morning of 11-5-79. 4. On 10-5-79, Smt. Kalawati alongwith his daughter Km. Saroj, aged about 12-13 years old, went to the Thrasher of Phool Singh and their wheat for the purpose of thrashing. At about 10. 00 p. m. Smt. Kalawati asked her daughter to bring a Chadra (a piece of cloth) for carrying the wheat after thrashing. She rushed to her house. When she was returning with the cloth and was on the way behind the house of Ghamman Singh, accused Balvir caught hold of her and raped on her. On the alarm raised, co- villagers Ratan Singh and Hori Singh arrived there. When the accused saw the witnesses he left the girl and ran away. 5. When Jagram returned to his house in the morning of 11-5-79, his wife Smt. Kalawati narrated the entire story to him. He asked the villagers to accompany him to the police station to lodge a report but none was ready to accompany. Jagram reached Nangal on a bicycle and both father and daughter reached there. He got a report prepared by one Mohd. Ali and reached the police station. 6. The local police registered a case at crime No. 33, under Section 376 I. P. C. at 12. 45 p. m. 7. The girl was sent to District Women Hospital for medical examination where P. W. 1 Dr. He got a report prepared by one Mohd. Ali and reached the police station. 6. The local police registered a case at crime No. 33, under Section 376 I. P. C. at 12. 45 p. m. 7. The girl was sent to District Women Hospital for medical examination where P. W. 1 Dr. Indu Bala Sinha examined Km. Saroj at 6. 30 p. m. on 11-5-79. She found no injury on the private parts of the body but hymen was torn. After X-ray of the knee joint, wrist joint, elbow joint and ankle joint, the girl was found to be between 11-12 years old and no sexual intercourse had been committed on her. 8. The case was investigated as usual by S. I. Devendra Singh Tyagi. After completing investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused under Sections 376/511 I. P. C. 9. The case was committed to the Court of Session on 26-11-1980. On 17-2-81 Balvir was charged under Section 376 I. P. C. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 10. The prosecution in support of its case examined P. W. 1 Dr. Indu Bala Sinha, who had done medical examination of the girl on 11-5-79, P. W. 2 Km. Saroj, the victim, P. W. 3 Jagram, father of the girl and P. W. 4 Smt. Kalawati, mother of the girl and P. W. 5 Rajpal Singh, X-ray Technician of the District Hospital, Bijnor. 11. Accused Balvir in his statement given under Section 313 Cr. P. C. admitted that Km. Saroj was 10-11 years old and an altercation had taken place between two families regarding flow of Nali and he was falsely implicated on account of enmity. No evidence was led in defence. 12. After close scrutiny and appraisal of the evidence on record led by the prosecution, learned Judge found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354 of Penal Code and concluded that rape was not committed by the accused on the girl. Accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 13. Feeling aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, Balvir came up in appeal. 14. I have heard learned Counsel on both sides and perused the record carefully. 15. Accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 13. Feeling aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, Balvir came up in appeal. 14. I have heard learned Counsel on both sides and perused the record carefully. 15. Learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment mainly on the grounds that no eye witness was examined in the Court below on behalf of the prosecution and the learned Judge committed illegality in believing the testimony of the girl. According to him, neither I. O. was examined nor any independent witness was produced in the witness box. The Court below disbelieved the theory that rape was committed by the accused and accused was found guilty for committing the offence punishable under Section 354 I. P. C. The lady doctor found no injury on the private parts of the body and she explained that hymen was not torn in the night intervening 10/11-5-79. She found no inflammation, redness or bleeding and the tear was not fresh. The lady doctor stated in clear words that sexual intercourse was not committed with the girl. In this view of the matter, the trial Court was not justified in convicting the appellant under Section 354 I. P. C. also. 16. On the other hand, learned A. G. A. has supported the finding recorded by the Court below. 17. Taking into consideration the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant, I find that his contentions have no force and cannot be accepted. It is true that no independent eye-witness was produced in the witness box but this omission on the part of the prosecution is not fatal in the present case. According to written report (Ex. Ka-2) also, two witnesses Ratan Singh and Hori Singh arrived there on hearing hue and cry raised by the girl. When the accused saw the witnesses, he left the place. It means the witnesses could not see the accused actually molesting or outraging her modesty. Further, Smt. Kalawati gave out in very clear words that Ratan Singh and Hori Singh were won over by the accused and they accepted money from him. This statement of the lady was not challenged in the cross- examination. Therefore, the prosecution has given satisfactory explanation for non-production of any independent witness. Further, Smt. Kalawati gave out in very clear words that Ratan Singh and Hori Singh were won over by the accused and they accepted money from him. This statement of the lady was not challenged in the cross- examination. Therefore, the prosecution has given satisfactory explanation for non-production of any independent witness. In the instant case, I find that the trial Court did close scrutiny of the evidence on record and rightly concluded that accused did not commit rape on the girl. P. W. 2 Km. Saroj testified in clear words that when she was thrown on the ground by the accused, she was facing towards earth and in this position the accused tried to commit rape on her. I fully agree with the observation of the trial Court that rape on a minor girl lying in the aforesaid position was not possible. Moreover, the medical evidence too did not support this theory that sexual intercourse was committed on the night in question. 18. I further find that I. O. was not examined in the case. It is well settled now that non-examination of the I. O. in every case and in all the circumstances is not fatal. How the accused was prejudiced on account of non-production of the I. O. in the witness box was not shown by the appellants Counsel. I find from the testimony of the girl and other circumstances also that the accused proposed to have sexual intercourse with her after receiving money and on her refusal, he used force with an intention to commit rape on her but he did not succeed. However, it is crystal clear from the evidence on record that accused used force intending to outrage her modesty. It is noteworthy that in sexual offences corroboration of the testimony of the victim is not a sine qua non for recording a finding of conviction. In the instant case, the parents of the girl have supported the prosecution version. The victim belongs to a Harijan family. The defence failed to show and prove that accused was falsely implicated on account of any enmity. It may be mentioned that no oral or documentary evidence has been led in defence. 19. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence on record as discussed above and the arguments also advanced on behalf of the parties. The defence failed to show and prove that accused was falsely implicated on account of any enmity. It may be mentioned that no oral or documentary evidence has been led in defence. 19. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence on record as discussed above and the arguments also advanced on behalf of the parties. I conclude that the learned Judge rightly found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354 I. P. C. and accused was rightly convicted under Section 354 I. P. C. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the learned trial Court has already taken a very lenient view and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. In my opinion, no case for interference is made out. 20. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are hereby maintained. The appellant is allowed one months time to deposit the fine in the Court below from today. 21. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Court concerned for information and compliance of the order. Compliance report be submitted to this Court within a period of two months. Appeal dismissed. .