A. K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THE judg-ment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court, is impugned in this appeal. The learned trial judge convicted the appellant under sections 376 and 450 I. P. C. and he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprison-ment of ten years under each section, he has been further sentenced with fine of Rs. 5,000. 00 under each offence and in default further R. I. of two and half years. Needless to emphasis the trial court directed both the sentences to run concurrently. ( 2 ) NO exhaustive statement of facts are necessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, suffice it to say that in between the night of 12/13th March, 2001 when the prosecutrix was sleeping inside her house along with her mother P. W. 3 Keshar Bai, at that juncture the appellant knocked the door and called in female voice as a result of which prosecutrix woke up and opened the door. On opening the door, the appellant rushed inside the house and closed the door, as a result of which the prosecutrix screamed and on hearing her shriek her mother Keshar Bai woke up. The accused pushed Keshar Bai in another room and bolted the door from the outside, thereafter, threw the prose-cutrix and undressed her and thereafter despite her resistance committed rape on her. The accused, thereafter fled from the place of occurrence. The mother of the prosecutrix Keshar Bai witnessed the incident from the space of the door. The prosecutrix was weeping. As incident occurred during late night hours, the F. I. R. was lodged on next day i. e. 13/3/2001 at 11. 45 hours. ( 3 ) ON the basis of F. I. R. the criminal law was set in motion and a case under section 450 and 376 I. P. C. was registered against the appellant. ( 4 ) THE Investigating Officer sent the prosecutrix for medical examination and thereafter in furtherance to his investigation, the Investigating Officer seized the necessary articles, prepared the spot map, recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation filed the charge-sheet in the competent court, who on its turn committed the case to the court of sessions, from where it was received by the trial court for the trial. ( 5 ) THE learned trial judge after perusing the charge sheet framed charges under Sections 450 and 376 I. P. C. which appellant denied. ( 6 ) IN order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and placed Exs. P-1 to P-9, the documents on record. The defence of the accused is of maladroit implication. In his defence he examined four witnesses. ( 7 ) THE learned trial judge after examining the evidence came to hold that appellant committed the offence for which he was charged and eventually convicted him to suffer the sentences which I have mentioned hereinabove. Hence this appeal. ( 8 ) I have heard Shri D. S. Tomar and B. K. Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S. L. Khurana learned counsel for respondent. After having heard them, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. ( 9 ) THE law regarding the case falling under Section 376 I. P. C. is now well settled. There are several decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this High Court that no corroboration of the statement of the prosecutrix is required if her testimony inspire confidence. On going through the evidence of the prosecutrix it is perceivable that during late night hours when she and her mother were sleeping, she heard that somebody is knocking the door and heard the voice of some lady as a result of which, she opened the door. The accused/appellant who was standing outside the house, rushed inside and closed the door. He gave a kick to her as a result of which she fell down and shrieked. On hearing her scream her mother woke up but she was overpowered by the accused and he dragged her mother in another room and bolted it from outside. The light of the room was on. Thereafter the appellant torned her clothes and intercoursed with her. The prosecutrix is lame, she is not able to walk properly however she resisted and tried to struggle by her hands but failed as the accused overpowered her. The accused after satisfying his lascivious thirst fled from the place of occurrence. The prosecutrix thereafter opened the door of the room which was bolted and thereafter her mother came out from that room. The mother was also witnessing the shameful incident from the space of the door. The accused after satisfying his lascivious thirst fled from the place of occurrence. The prosecutrix thereafter opened the door of the room which was bolted and thereafter her mother came out from that room. The mother was also witnessing the shameful incident from the space of the door. The prosecutrix also narrated the incident to her, thereafter her mother gave a salvar to wear. Both of them were weeping. As the incident took place in the late night and the brother of the prosecutrix was not present in the house, the prosecutrix did not go to lodge the report and as soon as her brother came, the incident was narrated to him, and on the next day F. I. R. (Ex. P-4) was lodged by her. ( 10 ) THE prosecutrix was examined by the lady doctor, Dr. Dipti Jam (PW8 ). On examining the prosecutrix, she found her to be disabled. The lady doctor noticed several abrasions on her boob. On left boob there was an abrasion of 5 x 2 cm. and abrasion of 5 x 5 cm was found in her sternum. An abrasion 6 x 2 cm was also found in the right armpit. There was tenderness in the boob and the patient was complaining pain, the blood was found to be clotted in the wounds. Apart from these injuries, the lady doctor also found the scratch marks on both the shoulders. One scratch on the left shoulder was 10 cm and another scratch 6 cm. was beneath the first scratch. She was complaining the pain in her right breast. On examining, the breast tenderness was also found. Thus the evidence of prosecutrix is also corrobo-rated by the medical evidence. Though, the doctor did not find any injury on her private part, but, this fact cannot be marginalised and blinked away that the prosecutrix is a disabled lady and she is lame. It has come in her evidence that she was overpowered by the appellant and therefore in my opinion though umpteen injuries were sustained by her, being widow it was not necessary that some injury would come in her private part. It has come in her evidence that she was overpowered by the appellant and therefore in my opinion though umpteen injuries were sustained by her, being widow it was not necessary that some injury would come in her private part. ( 11 ) NO corroboration is required if the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and on going through the evidence of the prosecutrix, though she was cross examined at length, but she remained embedded in her version and thus the only inference which could be gathered from her evidence is that she was brutally ravished by the appellant. The evidence of prosecutrix is clear, cogent and trustworthy. In this case her evidence is corroborated by her mother Keshar Bai who was also overpowered by the accused and was thrown inside a room which was bolted by him from outside. The helpless mother witnessed the vile incident of her own daughter, the prosecutrix was weeping and crying but she was helpless and when the accused went away from the place of incident and the door was opened by the prosecutrix she came out and she also started weeping. The evidence of the mother is natural. One could admire the pains which both these ladies faced. In my opinion the appellant has been rightly convicted. ( 12 ) I have perused the reasonings assigned by learned trial judge convicting the appellant and I find them to be cogent as they are based on the evidence, placed on record, and I do not wish to deviate myself from those reasonings and by this judgment, I hereby give my stamp of approval to those reasonings. ( 13 ) LASTLY, it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant was taken into custody on 14/3/2001 and since then he is in jail and therefore, this court should take a lenient view and may pass a lesser sentence. The argument at the first blush though appears to be quite attractive but on deeper scrutiny found to be devoid of any substance. A disabled woman who could not even walk properly, was revished just to satisfy the lascivious thirst of appellant though prosecutrix tried her best and resisted but the vile act committed and as she was overpowered by the devil appellant. A disabled woman who could not even walk properly, was revished just to satisfy the lascivious thirst of appellant though prosecutrix tried her best and resisted but the vile act committed and as she was overpowered by the devil appellant. The intention of the appellant to commit the rape is obvious because he knocked the door and called in female voice and under this pretext his scheme to commit rape succeeded and he entered inside the house to commit the shameful act. In this view of the matter, according to me if any leniency is adopted in pa-ssing the sentence, it would amount to throttling the modesty of the women as well as the law, which I am unable to do. ( 14 ) IN the result, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, if the amount of fine if it has been deposited by the appellant the same may be paid to the prosecutrix. Appeal dismissed. .