JUDGMENT: 1. This is an appeal by an accused who was convicted by Third (Ad hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Akola for having committed an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer seven years' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows - On the date of incident, prosecutrix Ku.Shahanu had taken the cattle for grazing to her field. The cattle were grazing and she was sitting beneath a tree. The accused Bhavsing was also grazing the cattle in the nearby field. He came there. He lifted Shahanu, took her beneath the another tree and ravished her. She suffered injuries to her private part and therefore immediately came back home. She narrated the incident to her mother Reshma, who in turn narrated the incident to Shahanu's father. Sukhlal, the father of the prosecutrix, went to the police station and lodged the report. The police arrested the accused. They went to the place of incident and seized from there blood stained leaves of the trees and the broken bangles. They had also seized the clothes belonging to the prosecutrix and the accused. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused. 3. The Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) committed the case to the court of Sessions. The court of Sessions framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty. After consideration of the evidence, the Sessions Judge held the accused guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. Being aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence, this appeal has been preferred. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. As many as ten witnesses are examined by the prosecution. PW 1 is Dr.Sanjay Kolate. PW 2 . Ramesh is a panch, PW 3 Ku.Shahanu is the prosecutrix. PW 4 is Sukhlal, the father of the prosecutrix. PW 5 is Dr.Shital Modak. PW 6 is Reshma . mother of the prosecutrix. PW 7 is Ramesh, another panch. PW 8 is A.S.I. Arun, the station diary incharge. PW 9 is Dr.Manish and PW 10 is Ashok, the investigating Officer. 6. PW 4 is Sukhlal, the father of the prosecutrix. PW 5 is Dr.Shital Modak. PW 6 is Reshma . mother of the prosecutrix. PW 7 is Ramesh, another panch. PW 8 is A.S.I. Arun, the station diary incharge. PW 9 is Dr.Manish and PW 10 is Ashok, the investigating Officer. 6. It is deposed by PW 3 Ku.Shahanu that on the date of incident she had taken cattle for grazing in the field and was sitting beneath a tree. She states that accused came there, lifted her and carried her under another tree and made her lie down. She further states that the accused lifted her ghagra. She started crying but accused pressed her mouth. Further she states that the accused lifted her thigh and sat on her person and inserted his penis into her vagina. She goes on to depose that after said act was over, he got up and told her not to disclose the said incident to anybody. She further states that after the said act, there was a bleeding and her clothes were soaked with blood. It is also stated that when she resisted, the accused gave a threat to kill her. She goes on to depose that there was a bleeding and pain. She narrated the incident to her mother and father. The main thrust of the crossexamination appears to be on strained relations between accused and her uncle. She fairly admits that there was a dispute between them. She, however, positively denies that she is telling as tutored by her father. There is no reason for such a small girl to tell so unnecessarily to implicate the accused. As far as the sexual assault is concerned, she has not faltered any where. It is suggested to her that no such incident took place at all and further it is suggested that she fell down and sustained injury to her private part. PW 1 Dr.Sanjay positively says that such injury is not possible due to fall on a thorny surface. There is nothing in the cross-examination to suggest that she is telling lies. 7. Her evidence is fully corroborated by PW 1 Dr.Sanjay, who had immediately examined her. He observed a tear of posterior wall of vagina and hymen was found to be ruptured. It is elicited in cross-examination that the injury was fresh. There is nothing in the cross-examination to suggest that she is telling lies. 7. Her evidence is fully corroborated by PW 1 Dr.Sanjay, who had immediately examined her. He observed a tear of posterior wall of vagina and hymen was found to be ruptured. It is elicited in cross-examination that the injury was fresh. It is thus clear that this injury was sustained by prosecutrix due to insertion of penis. This fact corroborates her version. PW 3 Ku.Shahanu had immediately disclosed the incident to her mother Reshma (PW 6), as is stated by her. This conduct of PW 3 also supports her version. 8. PW 7 Ramesh is panch on the spot panchanama (Exh.22). He states that spot was examined in his presence and blood was found on the leaves there and also on the ground. He also states that pieces of bangles were also found there and they were seized. These observations, the seizure of the blood stained leaves and the pieces of bangles further corroborate her version. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused had contended that there is no age proof of prosecutrix. The prosecutrix on oath tells her age as 12 years and there is no cross-examination on the point at all. She had not developed axillary or pubic hair also. Obviously, age as told by her appears to be true. Even otherwise, consent is not the defence of accused and hence the age is immaterial. The evidence fully establishes that the accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her wish. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence and I see no reason to interfere with the finding as recorded by her. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Hence the order. The appeal is dismissed. The conviction of the appellant/accused and the sentence imposed is confirmed.