DILIP RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11. 7. 2000 delivered by Shri g. Minhajuddin, learned 1st Additional sessions Judge in sessions case No. 74/ 2000 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section-376 I. P. C. and was sentenced to undergo R. I. for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00, in default to undergo additional RI for six months. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution story is that on 16/1/2000 at about 2. 30 p. M. the prosecutrix, a girl below 12 years of age was returning home from the agricultural field. The appellant caught hold of the prosecutrix and lifting her took her to a nearby field and committed rape on her. The prosecutrix attempted to shout, but the appellant gagged her mouth and threatened her. After committing rape, the appellant ran away. Due to heavy bleeding from the vaginal orifice, her chaddi, skirt and frock got stained with blood. The prosecutrix came home crying and narrated the incident to her parents. F. I. R. Ex. P. 1 was lodged by the prosecutrix at Police Station Dhamdha situated at a distance of 12 kilometers, on the same day at 6. 00 P. M. ( 3 ) DR. Smt. S. Rajput P. W. 6 vide ex. P. 11 examined the prosecutrix and found per vaginal examination that she was bleeding profusely. Blood clots were present inside the vagina in large quantity. Vaginal tear was also present about 4 cm. in length on the lateral wall extending up to the post-vaginal wall which was bleeding profusely. A tear was also found on the forchette about 1 cm. in length skin deep with fresh bleeding. It was opined that the injuries aforesaid could be due to forceful sexual intercourse. She also examined one cotton skirt and one cotton underwear of the prosecutrix sent by P. S. Dhamdha and found blood like stains on both and advised chemical analysis for confirmation of the nature of the stains. The appellant was examined by Dr, P. O. Chandrawanshi P. W. 9 and found vide Ex. P. 14 that the appellant was capable of performing sexual intercourse. The appellant was examined by Dr, P. O. Chandrawanshi P. W. 9 and found vide Ex. P. 14 that the appellant was capable of performing sexual intercourse. The chaddi 'article A-1', skirt 'article A-2 of the prosecutrix, a full pant 'article-B' and pubic hairs 'article-C of the appellant along with blood soil 'article-D' and plain soil 'article-E' were sent for medical analysis to the F. S. L Presence of the blood was confirmed on chaddi 'article A-1, skirt 'article A-2' of the prosecutrix and full pant 'article-B', pubic hair 'article-C' of the appellant and the stained soil. Presence of human spermatozoa and semen was also confirmed on the skirt, pubic hair and blood stained soil. After completion of investigation, prosecution was launched under Section 376 (2) (f) I. P. C. against the appellant who abjured the guilt, pleaded innocence and led no evidence in defence. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. The trial Judge relying upon the testimony of the prosecutrix which was dully corroborated by medical evidence, report of Forensic Science Laboratory and oral evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid in para-1 (Supra ). ( 4 ) SHRI R. K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the conviction referred to para 7 of the testimony of the prosecutrix and argued that the appellant had only inserted two fingers inside the vaginal orifice of the prosecutrix, resulting in bleeding therefrom. It was contended that this act of the appellant would at the most be an offence under Section 377 of the I. P. C. and not under Section 376 I. P. C. It was also contended that during medical examination by Dr. Smt. S. Rajput P. W. 6, the vaginal slides of the prosecutrix was not prepared which alone could have conclusively established whether penetration had taken place or not. It was lastly contended that the appellant was undergoing sentence for almost six years, and therefore, since the appellant was a young lad of 18 years at the time of occurrence, the sentence awarded should be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. On the other hand, Shri U. K. S. Chandel, learned Panel Lawyer has vehemently opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant while contending that the wholly unrebutted testimony of amrita Bai P. W. 1 was fully corroborated not only by the evidence of Dr. On the other hand, Shri U. K. S. Chandel, learned Panel Lawyer has vehemently opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant while contending that the wholly unrebutted testimony of amrita Bai P. W. 1 was fully corroborated not only by the evidence of Dr. Smt. S. Rajput P. W. 6 but also by the report of the f. S. L Ex. P. 19. It was contended that the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 I. P. C. was well founded and considering the brutal manner in which the appellant had committed rape on a minor girl, the appellant did not deserve any leniency in sentence awarded by the trial court. ( 5 ) HAVING heard rival contentions, i have gone through the record. Prosecutrix P. W. 1 has categorically stated in para 1 that while she was returning from agricultural field, the appellant caught hold her, lifted her and taking her to a nearby field committed sexual intercourse with her by penetrating his penis inside her vaginal orifice. She has further stated that after subjecting her to such a forceful sexual assault, the appellant inserted two fingers inside her vagina which resulted in excessive bleeding. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had merely committed an unnatural offence under Section 377 I. P. C. has to be stated only to be rejected. The testimony of the prosecutrix clearly shows that after satisfying his lust, the appellant further inserted two fingers inside her vagina which caused severe pain to the prosecutrix and resulted in excessive bleeding. Findings of dr. Smt. S. Rajput P. W. 6 which have been dealt with in para 15 of the judgment fully corroborated the statement of the prosecutrix. It shows that the prosecutrix was subjected to a very brutal sexual assault. The report of Forensic Science Laboratory ex. P-19 also corroborates the testimony of the prosecutrix. There is absolutely nothing to rebut the testimony of the prosecutrix in her cross-examination. Her statement is natural, inspires confidence and is trustworthy. Dukala bai P. W. 3 mother of the prosecutrix has also narrated that the prosecutrix had sustained excessive vaginal bleeding for which she was admitted in the Government Hospital at Durg. There is absolutely nothing to rebut the testimony of the prosecutrix in her cross-examination. Her statement is natural, inspires confidence and is trustworthy. Dukala bai P. W. 3 mother of the prosecutrix has also narrated that the prosecutrix had sustained excessive vaginal bleeding for which she was admitted in the Government Hospital at Durg. ( 6 ) HAVING thus considered the evidence led by the prosecution in its entirety, I am of the considered opinion that it is fully established beyond the shadow of any doubt that the appellant subjected the prosecutrix, a minor girl, to a very forceful sexual intercourse. So far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, the testimony of Dr. Smt. S. Rajput only revealed an estimation that the prosecutrix, was aged about 12 years. Since the evidence led by the prosecution did not establish beyond doubt that the prosecutrix was a woman under 12 years of age, the learned trial Judge has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 376 i. P. C. So far as the sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge is concerned, in my considered opinion, considering the brutal manner in which a minor girl was ravished, the appellant does not deserve any leniency. ( 7 ) IN the result, conviction of the appellant under Section 376 I. P. C. and the sentence awarded thereunder by the trial Court does not call for interference whatsoever. This appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .