( 1 ) APPELLANTS Rakesh alias manohar and Kailash stand convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 376 (2 (g)-of the indian Penal Code and each of them sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 12 years with fine Rs. 5,000/-, in default whereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for 2 years by the impugned judgment and order dated 31-11-2000, passed by Addl. Sessions judge, Mhow, Distt. Indore. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case in brief is that in the intervening night of 20th and 21st of June, 2000, some quarrel took place between the parents of the prosecutrix. Because of this quarrel, mother of the prosecutrix left her home. Her father went in search of the mother of the prosecutrix. When Nanuram, the father of the prosecutrix returned at 6. 00 a. m. , he found his daughter Anita, the prosecutrix, in semi-conscious condition. Prosecutrix Anita informed her father that in the night appellants took her near the field and both of them committed rape on her. Nanuram along with his daughter Anita went to Police Station Mhow and lodged FIR which was registered as Crime No. 0/2000. As the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of P. S. Badgonda, the case was transferred to that Police Station, where Crime no. 119/2000 was registered. ( 3 ) PROSECUTRIX was sent for medical examination. She was examined by Dr. Pratimarai Batham (P. W. 1 ). At the time of examination, general condition of the prosecutrix was poor, but she was conscious. Dr. Pratimarai Batham found the marks of teeth bite over the cheek of the prosecutrix. She found multiple scratch marks over her right shoulder, multiple abrasion over her back and multiple abrasion over left thigh. Her underwear was found soaked with discharge. On further examination, she found infected perenial wounds, but there was no active blood. The size of this wound was 3 x1 x 1' extending up to anus. As the prosecutrix was not allowing internal examination and the facility of giving anaesthesia was not available, Dr. Smt. Batham referred the case to M. Y. Hospital, indore, for further examination and treatment. Dr. Smt. Batham opined that rape was committed on the prosecutrix within 36 hours of her examination. The cloth of the prosecutrix were recovered by Dr. Pratimarai batham. Ex. P/1 is the report of Dr. Smt. Batham. In the M, Y. Hospital, the prosecutrix was admitted as indoor; patient. Dr. Smt. Batham opined that rape was committed on the prosecutrix within 36 hours of her examination. The cloth of the prosecutrix were recovered by Dr. Pratimarai batham. Ex. P/1 is the report of Dr. Smt. Batham. In the M, Y. Hospital, the prosecutrix was admitted as indoor; patient. Surgery was also performed on her private part. ( 4 ) AFTER investigation challan for the alleged offence was filed against the appellants. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. ( 5 ) THE learned Addl. Sessions Judge, framed charges against the (appellants for the alleged offence. ( 6 ) THE appellants abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. Their defence was that they have been falsely implicated in the case. ( 7 ) ON the basis of the above prosecution case, trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced them, as indicated above. ( 8 ) I have heard Mr. I. C. Gangrade, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. G. S. Chouhan, learned Government. Advocate for the respondent State and perused the record of the trial Court. ( 9 ) MR. Gangrade, learned counsel appearing for the appellants led me through the record and contended that the learned addl. Sessions Judge, committed an error in holding the appellants guilty of the charges levelled against them. He submitted that conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants are illegal and incorrect as such liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the judgment recorded by the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellants. ( 10 ) PROSECUTION, in support of its case, examined prosecutrix Anita (P. W. 2), her father nanuram (P. W. 3), the Doctors who examined the prosecutrix and the appellants and the Investigating Officer with certain other witnesses. ( 11 ) KU. Anita has stated that on the date of incident when her father went in search of her mother who left home because of the quarrel and when she was sleeping in her house, both the accused persons came to her house and gave her an allurement that they will give her biscuits and other eatables and took her to Bandabasti near a bridge. Appellant Kailash removed her underwear and frock and committed rape on her. Blood started oozing from her private part. Appellant Kailash removed her underwear and frock and committed rape on her. Blood started oozing from her private part. She tried to raise alarm but her mouth was gagged. After the Commission of the rape on her, the accused persons left her at Gandhi chowk. She reached home. Thereafter, her father returned home. She informed her father about the said incident. Thereupon she was taken to Police Station. FIR was lodged by her father. ( 12 ) NANURAM (P. W. 3) has stated that on the date of incident he left his home in search of his wife who left home because of the quarrel. When he returned home he found the prosecutrix semi-conscious. Her clothes were soaked with blood. Prosecutrix informed him that the appellants took her to Bandabasti and committed rape on her near Pulia. He lodged report at Police station Mhow. The prosecutrix was taken to mhow Hospital, where she was examined by lady Doctor and was referred to M. Y. Hospital, Indpre. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix and her father does not inspire confidence. Some unknown persons committed rape on the prosecutrix and the appellants have been falsely implicated. Prosecutrix herself admitted that the accused persons and her father have enmical terms. Contention is not acceptable. I have thoroughly examined the evidence of prosecutrix and her father and I do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecutrix. Neither the prosecutrix nor her father has stated that they were in enmical terms with the appellants. Not even a suggestion has been given to the prosecutrix or her father about the enmity. There is no reason whatsoever to discard the testimony of the prosecutrix. ( 14 ) THE evidence of the prosecutrix is corroborated by her father who has stated that the prosecutrix has narrated him the whole incident. The evidence of prosecutrix is further corroborated by medical evidence. Not only external injuries were found on the person of the prosecutrix, but injuries were found on her private part also. On the slides of the smear of the prosecutrix and on her underwear blood, semen and human spermatazoa were found in the report of forensic Science Laboratory. The evidence of prosecutrix is further corroborated by medical evidence. Not only external injuries were found on the person of the prosecutrix, but injuries were found on her private part also. On the slides of the smear of the prosecutrix and on her underwear blood, semen and human spermatazoa were found in the report of forensic Science Laboratory. ( 15 ) PROSECUTRIX has given natural version of the whole incident which is supported by the evidence of her father and medical evidence and also the presence of semen and spermatazoa on the undergarments and slides of smear of the prosecutrix. Examining the evidence of the prosecutrix as a whole, the same inspires confidence. Evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be discarded unless there is something inherent in the evidence to disbelieve her. ( 16 ) LEARNED Addl. Sessions Judge in his judgment, discussed the evidence in details. He has properly appreciated the evidence available on record. Finding of the trial Court is based on cogent reasons. Approach of the trial Court as to the evidence adduced in the case is legal, proper and reasonable. ( 17 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the conviction rendered by the trial Court does not call for any interference by this Court. ( 18 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants lastly contended that appellants are in custody for a sufficient long time, therefore, the sentence which they have already undergone will meet the ends of justice. ( 19 ) THIS contention also cannot be accepted. In this case, rape was committed on a young girl in a very cruel manner. Rape is not only a crime against a woman, but also against the entire society. It destroys the entire life of a woman and throws her into deep emotional crisis. It is the crime against the basic human rights, therefore, though a long period has rolled up from the date of commission of the offence, considering the nature of offence and the manner in which the offence is committed, I do not find it appropriate to interfere with the sentence awarded by the trial Court. Learned counsel for appellants could not show any special or adequate reason to impose sub minimum sentence. ( 20 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the appeal must be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Learned counsel for appellants could not show any special or adequate reason to impose sub minimum sentence. ( 20 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the appeal must be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Impugned judgment and order of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellants for the aforesaid offences is hereby maintained. Appeal dismissed .