Judgment M.M.Aggarwal, J. 1. This is an appeal against judgment dated 11.10.1993 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby Pardeep Kumar appellant was convicted for offence under Section 376 IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year. 2. Prosecution case against the appellant was that on 26.1.1992 at about 4.30 PM appellant Pardeep Kumar entered the house of the prosecutrix when she was alone. He enquired about her parents. She told that they had gone to meet some relations. Then appellant bolted the outer gate and started kissing her and then made her to lie on the ground. He committed sexual intercourse with her against her wishes. Appellant also threatened her not to tell this thing to anybody otherwise she would be done to death. Then accused left the house. She had cried and wept. After some time, her mother came and on seeing her condition, she enquired from her about the matter but due to fear and threat she did not disclose anything. On 2.2.2002 she narrated the whole story to her mother on persistent enquiries. Her salwar was also smeared with blood. It was seen by her mother. Then the matter was reported to the police. Case was registered. Medical examination was conducted. Accused was arrested and then sent for trial after investigation. After trial, he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 3. Counsel for the appellant argued that as per allegations occurrence had taken place on 26.1.1992 whereas FIR was registered on 2.2.1992 and medical examination was conducted on 3.2.1992. It was pointed out that on 30.1.1992 some persons of Suniti Kumari side had ransacked the house of the appellant/accused and thereafter the appellant was falsely involved in the present case on 2.2.1992. It was also argued that occurrence, as alleged, took place at about 4.30 PM when other brother and sister of the prosecutrix would be at home and it would be quite improbable for such occurrence to take place. It was further argued that there was no evidence that accused/appellant was fit to perform sexual intercourse. 4. From the statement of Sunita who appeared as PW-1 it was pointed out that as per her statement, her age must be about 20 years. From the statement of Dr. It was further argued that there was no evidence that accused/appellant was fit to perform sexual intercourse. 4. From the statement of Sunita who appeared as PW-1 it was pointed out that as per her statement, her age must be about 20 years. From the statement of Dr. Surinder Kaur who appeared as PW-2 it was pointed out that there was no mark of injury although vagina admitted two fingers tightly. Hymen was raptured but still doctor opined that it was not fresh reputure of the hymen. 5. In the present case, Subash Chander of the office of Local Registrar Births and Deaths, Municipal Corporation Ludhiana appeared as PW-3 had brought regarding age and had stated that as per birth Certificate Ex. PD, the date of birth is 18.3.1978. Sunita also gave her age to be 13 years when she appeared as PW-1. The date of occurrence is 26.1.1992 although Sunita has stated that she was eldest of her brother and sisters and her sister who is second from last was born in the year 1978, still it cannot be said that she was 20 years of age. Even if she was 16 years of age, still from the facts and circumstances, this case cannot be called to be rape by consent and age is not very material. There will be no cause for a girl aged 15-16 years to involve the accused falsely by involving herself. 6. As per statement of Sunita prosecutrix, accused had threatened after committing rape not to tell anything to anybody, otherwise, she would be killed and after threatening he had left. She had given the details as to how rape was committed. 7. Even if delay is there, delay may not be very material in such like matter. Sushma, mother of the prosecutrix, appearing as PW-4 had stated that she along with her husband and all other three children, except Sunita had gone to Kishanpura to meet her relations on 26.1.1992 and Sunita was alone in the house and when they returned at 5 or 5.30 PM then she was found weeping. She enquired about the cause of weeping but she did not tell anything. On her persistent asking, she narrated the fact on 2.2.1992 that appellant/accused had committed rape. She enquired about the cause of weeping but she did not tell anything. On her persistent asking, she narrated the fact on 2.2.1992 that appellant/accused had committed rape. Then she noticed that her salwar was also stained with blood on 26.1.1992 but at that time she was of the opinion that it was due to menstruation. 8. There would be no cause for Sunita or her mother to falsely implicate the present appellant. The contention of the accused and the statements of DW-1 Ram Parkash Bhandari and DW-2 Sampuran Singh are that parents of the prosecutrix along with certain relations had ransacked the house of the appellant on 30.1.1992. It is quite possible that these people had come to know of the rape on that day or sometime earlier between 26.1.1992 and 30.1.1992 and they might have gone to protest or show their grievance and then they later reported the matter to the police but that all this will not discredit the prosecution version. Dr. Surinder Kaur PW-2 had stated that fresh reputure means only between 24 to 48 hours and the healing of the reputure of hymen takes place between 48 and 72 hours. It is not necessary that there should be always marks of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix. In this case, she was examined after about 8 days. 9. Accused/appellant was a young man of 30 years. Although prosecution did not lead evidence that he was fit to perform sexual intercourse, still there is nothing to suggest that he was unfit to perform sexual intercourse. 10. Lastly counsel for the appellant had prayed that lenient view be taken in this case. 11. From the above, I do not find any merit in this appeal and conviction of the appellant is maintained. Sentence of 10 years RI is on the higher side. Therefore, sentence of imprisonment is reduced from 10 years RI to 7 years RI and the sentence of fine shall remain intact as awarded by the trial Court. With above modification, this appeal stands dismissed.