Judgment 1. This is an appeal filed by the convict-appellant Sunder Singh against the judgment dated 25-9-2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul vide which he has been convicted under Sections 376 and 366-A, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years under Section 376, I.P.C. and R.I. for 7 years under Section 366-A, I.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, the accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 19-3-1992, at about noon time, complainant Budh Ram (PW-3) along with his grand-daughter Sarla aged 7 to 8 years went to see the Chharandi Fair at Baba Paddarwala Johar. Mahesh Panch and "appellant Sunder Singh had accompanied them. The grand-daughter of the complainant wanted to go back, so the complainant asked appellant Sunder Singh to take her along and leave her in the house. The appellant, instead of leaving her at her house, took her away and committed rape on her and then strangulated her to death. 3. The occurrence took place on 19-3- 1992 at noon. The F.I.R, Ex. PC was registered on 20-3-1992 at 7.35 a.m. 4. the prosecution in order to prove its case, brought into the witness-box PW-1 Dr. S. C. Goyal, PW-2 Dr. O. P. Saroha, PW-3 Budh Ram, the complainant, PW-4 Mahesh kumar Panch, PW-5 Dhanpat Rai, PW-6 Pawan Kumar, PW-7 Sube Singh Patwari and PW-8 Inspector Udai Singh. 5. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to him under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the plea of accused-appellant is that of denial and Innocence. Thereafter the accused was called upon to enter upon any defence, but the accused did not avail that opportunity. 6. After hearing the arguments, trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused- appellant as stated above. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused-appellant has come up in this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the statement of PW- 1 Dr. S. C. Goyal and PW-2 Dr. O. P. Saroha. He has stated that as per the statement of PW-2, Dr. O. P. Saroha, rape was not committed on Sarla. the deceased. He has further stated that the doctor (PW-2) has opined that there was no injury on the body of Sunder Singh appellant. S. C. Goyal and PW-2 Dr. O. P. Saroha. He has stated that as per the statement of PW-2, Dr. O. P. Saroha, rape was not committed on Sarla. the deceased. He has further stated that the doctor (PW-2) has opined that there was no injury on the body of Sunder Singh appellant. It appears that Sunder Singh had not committed rape on Sarla. Injury No. 1 found on the dead-body of Sarla could have been sustained on account of insertion of foreign body material in her vagina, but it cannot be said that rape had been committed on her. 8. Similarly, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that PW-1 Dr. S. C, Goyal has only stated on his testimony that appellant Sunder Singh was fit for performing sexual intercourse. Nothing has been said by this doctor regarding rape having been committed on the person of the deceased. He has further stated that the last seen evidence has not been believed by the learned trial Court and that is due to this reason that the appellant has been acquitted of the charge under Section 302. I.P.C. 9. The State has not filed an appeal against the acquittal of the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Rahim Beg v. State of U. P., 1972 Cri App R 248 : (1972 Cri LJ 1260) (SC). He has also relied on a judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in Mohd. Habib V/s. State, 1989 Cri LJ 137. 11. Learned counsel for the State has stated that opinion of PW-2 Dr. O. P. Saroha is not conclusive to this effect that rape was not committed on the person of the deceased. In his statement, all that he has stated is that there were injuries on the person of the deceased. This witness has stated, that in his opinion, the possibility of rape could not be ruled out. Further, he has stated that without examining the appellant, he cannot say as to whether rape had been committed on the deceased or not. He has further stated that it appears that the appellant had not committed rape on the deceased. This doctor (PW-2) has not given a categoric finding of rape not being committed. Further, he has stated that without examining the appellant, he cannot say as to whether rape had been committed on the deceased or not. He has further stated that it appears that the appellant had not committed rape on the deceased. This doctor (PW-2) has not given a categoric finding of rape not being committed. All that he has stated is that it appears that rape has not been committed. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the State and perused the judgment and the state ments of the witnesses with their assistance. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid a lot of stress on the statements of PW-1 Dr. S, C. Goyal and PW-2 Dr. O. P. Saroha. PW-1 Dr. S. C. Goyal has stated in his statement, that on 20-3-1992 at 4.20 p.m.. the medico-legally examined Sunder Singh. In his opinion, the appellant was fit to perform sexual intercourse. During cross- examination, he has stated that it is incorrect to suggest that laceration or injury must be there in the eventuality of a person like the appellant committing forcible sexual intercourse with a girl of 8-9 years. Laceration or reddishness would not appear on his penis; meaning thereby that the appellant would not have suffered any injury on his private part in the eventuality of his committing rape on the deceased. 14. Dr. O. P. Saroha (PW-2) who along with Dr. (Mrs.) Beena Poddar and Dr. 3. C. Aggarwal conducted post-mortem on the dead-body of deceased Sarla, found the following injuries on her dead-body :- 1. The vulva was swollen and there were reddish contusions with abrasions 0.3 x 0.2, 0.5 x 0.2 cms. 0.2 x 0.2 cms and there were tiny contusions and lacerations on the labia majora and minora and hymen was ruptured. Clotted blood was present and serum was present in the vagina. It was swollen on examination. Laceration of the fourchette was present. 2. The neck was swollen and crepitations were present. 3. An abraided reddish contusion 1.5 cm Jn circumference on the right cheek was present. 4. Two abraded reddish contusions 0.5 x 0.4 cm. 0.4 cm. x 0.3 cm. on the face Just anterior to the right tragus were present. 5. A reddish contusion on the whole of the left cheek and buccal region was present. 15. 3. An abraided reddish contusion 1.5 cm Jn circumference on the right cheek was present. 4. Two abraded reddish contusions 0.5 x 0.4 cm. 0.4 cm. x 0.3 cm. on the face Just anterior to the right tragus were present. 5. A reddish contusion on the whole of the left cheek and buccal region was present. 15. The stomach contained semi digested food showing that the possibility of murder taking place at noon thus, cannot be ruled out. This witness (PW-2) has stated in his testimony that in his opinion and in the opinion of Dr. Beena Poddar and Dr. S. C. Aggarwal, who were part of the Board who had conducted the post-mortem on the dead-body of the deceased, the possibility of rape could not be ruled out. 16. PW-2 Dr. O. P. Saroha has given an opinion of the Board which was constituted for post-mortem examination, that the three doctors are of the same opinion that possibility of rape could not be ruled out on the person of the deceased. He has further stated that without examining the person (appellant) who had committed rape on the deceased, he cannot say as to whether rape had been committed on the deceased or not. No definite opinion is coming forward from the side of this doctor as to whether rape had been committed or not. 17. In this case rape is on 7/8 years of a girl by accused aged about 27 years. Non-presence of injury on the body of the accused would not show that rape was not committed. Presence of injury No. 1 on the person of victim is indicative of rape activity. 18. PW-3 Budh Ram, the complainant, has stated in his testimony that the fair was being held at a distance of about one furlong from their village. Their were about 500- 600 persons in the fair. No woman from his family had accompanied him along with the appellant, Mahesh and his grand-daughter Sarla. The appellant along with deceased Sarla left the fair at about 4 p.m. He came back to his house and there he came to know that the appellant had not reached the house along with the deceased. He informed the police. On the next day i.e. 20-3-1992, at 7.30 a.m., the F.I.R,, Ex.PC was recorded after he gave a statement. 19. He informed the police. On the next day i.e. 20-3-1992, at 7.30 a.m., the F.I.R,, Ex.PC was recorded after he gave a statement. 19. The occurrence: in this case had" taken place on 19-3-1992 at noon. F.I.R. (Ex.PC) was recorded on 20-3-1992 at 7.35 a.m. on the statement of PW-3 Budh Ram. The Special Report reached the IIIaqa Magistrate on 20-3-1992 at :L0.30 a.m. The distance between the village of the complainant and the police station is about 2-1/2 kms. The lodging of the F.I..R. in this case is very prompt. The deceased left the fair at 4 p.m. and it was after that in the evening when the complainant Came to the village, he found out that the deceased along with the appellant had not reached the house. It was thereafter, he started searching for the deceased and on the next day. early in the morning, he lodged thie complaint with the police. 20. PW-4 Mahesh Kumar has corroborated the statement of Budh Ram (PW-3). The medical evidence i,s not at variance with the ocularaccount. 21. PW-5 Dhanput Rai and Inspector Udai Singh (PW-8) have stated that as per the disclosure statement (Ex.PD) made by the appellant, the desid-body of the deceased wag recovered from the Sarson fields in the area of Village Saidpur. 22. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the appellant in Rahim Beg v. State of U. P. (1972 Cri LJ 1260) (supra) does not apply to the case in hand. In the said judgment, the Horible Supreme Court had held that the accu.sed was arrested, but not examined by the police on the next day. There were six contusions and one abrasion on the person of the accused. The injuries were. 11/2 days old. The male organs of the two accused were examined and no injury or appearance of the rape on the male organs was foumd. In the case in hand, the accused was examined. Though no injury was found on t he male organ of the appellant, but the doctors who have come into the witness-bo x as PWs. 1 and 2, have categorically stated that the possibility of rape cannot be ruted out. PW-2 Dr. O. P. Saroha has given his opinion after a Board of three dctors was constituted to oonduct postmortem on the dead-body of the deceased. 23. 1 and 2, have categorically stated that the possibility of rape cannot be ruted out. PW-2 Dr. O. P. Saroha has given his opinion after a Board of three dctors was constituted to oonduct postmortem on the dead-body of the deceased. 23. In the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in Mohd. Habib v. State (1989 Cri LJ 137) (supra), the accused was acquitted because the medical evidence falsified the evidence of the two eye-witnesses as well as of the prosecutrix. This judgment will not apply to the case in hand. In the case in hand, the prosecutrix was murdered. She has not come to the witnessbox. In fact, the medical evidence in the case in hand, corroborates the version which has been brought forward by the complainant. In Mohd. Habibs case (supra), there were two eye-witnesses. Whereas in .the case in hand, there are no eyewitnesses, but is a case of circumstantial evidence. The lodging of F.LR is very prompt.The F.I.R. being prompt coupled with the medical evidence and the ocular account, no case ts made out in favour of the app ellant. 24. The defence version set up in grounds of appeal that the present case is due to grudge over the land or on account of casting of vote against Dhanpat PW and the plea under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that due to old grievance and enmities, he has been falsely implicated in this case, is not believable. It is difficult to accept that the revenge on account of alleged grudge or a land would be taken by the father of the victim by foisting on the accused-appellant such a serious case. 25. Lastly, it was- submitted by the learned counsel that the accused remained in custody from March. 1992 to May, 1994 and the occurrence took place on 19-3-1992. Learned counsel argued that by taking sympathetic view, the period allready undergone may be considered sufficient. I am unable to accept this contention. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances, the accused-appellant does not deserve any leniency. The Judgment of the trial Court is well reasoned and the accused-appellant has been justifiably convicted and sentenced. 26. In view of the above discussion, the appeal fails and is dismissed.