Judgment ( 1. ) II ASJ, Sidhi vide impugned judgment dated 21-12-2000 in S. T. No. 18/2000 recording conviction of accused/appellant under Section 376, IPC sentenced him to undergo R. I. for a period of 10 years and to pay fine rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer further imprisonment for a period of four years. Being aggrieved accused/appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374, Cr. PC. ( 2. ) PROSECUTRIX a girl aged about 7 years was sitting in the campus of local hospital at Sidhi as her mother was undergoing some surgical operation. Accused/appellant taken her to the nearby canteen. Giving her a samosa, he took her to the terrace of the hospital building and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. Profusely bleeding per vagina, she was seen by her father jaisen Namdeo and the matter was reported to the police. Recording FIR (Ex. P-l), the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. As per report (Ex. P-5), the hymen was torn and was bleeding per vagina. It was suggestive of forceful sexual intercourse with her. Accused/appellant was arrested and in an identification parade (Ex. P-3) was identified by the prosecutrix and one Terasiabai. Completing the investigation, the accused/appellant has been charge-sheeted under Section 376, IPC. CJM Sidhi, vide order dated 21-1-2000, committed criminal Case No. 1380/99 to the Court of Sessions. II ASJ, Sidhi framing a charge under Section 376, IPC, directed trial of the accused/appellant. The accused/appellant abjured the guilt. However, accepting the statement of prosecutrix and others, the Court below held him guilty under Section 376, ipc and sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of 10 years and to pay fine rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer further imprisonment for a period of 4 years. ( 3. ) PROSECUTRIX (P. W. 1) aged about 7 years has stated that accused/appellant gave a samosa and taken her to the terrace of the building. Where, after removing her undergarments, he forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. Due to this act of the accused/appellant, there had been pain in her vagina and it profusely bleeded. The matter was reported to father jaisen Namdeo (P. W. 4 ). Jaisen Namdeo (P. W. 4) has stated that he found the prosecutrix weeping. The clothes were blood stained and there was a bleeding per vagina. On being narrated the story, he lodged the report (Ex. P-l) with the police. The matter was reported to father jaisen Namdeo (P. W. 4 ). Jaisen Namdeo (P. W. 4) has stated that he found the prosecutrix weeping. The clothes were blood stained and there was a bleeding per vagina. On being narrated the story, he lodged the report (Ex. P-l) with the police. Terasiabai (P. W. 2) in Paras 1 and 2 of her statement stated that in her presence the prosecutrix (P. W. 1) was taken away by the accused/appellant. Sanjay Prasad (P. W. 3) is the owner of the canteen, from where a samosa was purchased by the accused/appellant and given to the prosecutrix. From these statements, it has been fully established that accused/appellant is the person who asked the prosecutrix (P. W. 1) to accompany and after giving her samosa, taken her to the terrace of the building. Prosecutrix (P. W. 1) has clearly stated that after removing the undergarments accused/appellant forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her causing pain and bleeding per vagina. ( 4. ) SATISH Neeraj (P. W. 5), the Executive Magistrate conducted the identification parade as per Ex. P-3. The prosecutrix (P. W. 1) and Terasiabai (P. W. 2) identified the accused/appellant to be the person who asked the prosecutrix to accompany and taken her to the terrace where he committed rape on prosecutrix (P. W. 1 ). ( 5. ) FURTHER, the statement of prosecutrix (P. W. 1) is corroborated by the medical examination report (Ex. P-5) which has been proved by Dr. Smt. Babita Khare (P. W. 8 ). As per this statement of prosecutrix (P. W. 1) was rightly believed by the Court below that accused/appellant forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. The conviction of the accused/appellant has been well founded. Sentence of 10 years R. I. and payment of fine Rs. 5,000/- in the circumstances of the case is proper, however, in default of payment of fine, the accused/appellant should not to suffer further imprisonment for a period of 4 years. Instead it should be 6 months only. ( 6. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal succeeds partly. Affirming the conviction sentence of R. I. of 10 years and to pay fine Rs. 5,000/-, the period of imprisonment in default is reduced to 6 months. Accordingly the appeal is disposed of. Criminal Appeal partly allowed.