Judgment KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. Munia son of Rawat Singh, aged 29 years, has challenged the judgment rendered by Sessions Judge, Narnaul whereby he was convicted for offence under Sec.376 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. In the present case, occurrence had taken place on 6.3.1994 in the fields of prosecutrix. She got her statement recorded on 8.3.1994 at Police Station mohindergarh at 6.10 P. M. In her statement to the police, prosecutrix stated that she is resident of village Jawa. On 6.3.1994, she had gone to her fields falling within the revenue estate of village khudana to fetch the grass. At about 10.00 A. M. when she was collecting the grass, Munia resident of the village came. When he reached there, he pressed her neck and made her fall down on the ground. After untying the string of the salwar, he committed rape. Thereafter, he ran away from the spot. Prosecutrix returned to the house and narrated the occurrence to the mother of Munia. On the next day, she discussed the incident with her husband and thereafter the complaint was lodged. The prosecutrix was aged 50 years, whereas the accused-appellant was aged 29 years. 2. Sessions Judge, Narnaul on 2.9.1994 charged the appellant for offence under Sec.376 IPC for committing rape upon the prosecutrix (name withheld) on 6.3.1994 at 10.00 A. M. 3. Dr. R. S. SHARMA appeared as PW1 and opined that the appellant was capable of committing intercourse. 4. Asi Narain Singh PW2 proved the statement made by the prosecutrix ex. PB, on the basis of which FIR was recorded. He also examined the spot of occurrence and had taken into possession broken glass bangles belonging to the prosecutrix which were produced by SI Tula Ram. Prosecution tendered into evidence Exs. PJ and PK, the report of Forensic Science Laboratory. 5. Dharamvir Singh PW3 had photographed the spot and proved photographs Exs. PL/3 to Ex. PL/5. 6. Prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Amarwati Singhal PW4. The observations of the Doctor can be reproduced as under:- "the victim was thinly built, having height of 5.2" Weight 40 Kgs. She was menopausal. Breasts were sagging. Teeths were 8-8/7-7. Scanty hairs were present in the axila. PL/3 to Ex. PL/5. 6. Prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Amarwati Singhal PW4. The observations of the Doctor can be reproduced as under:- "the victim was thinly built, having height of 5.2" Weight 40 Kgs. She was menopausal. Breasts were sagging. Teeths were 8-8/7-7. Scanty hairs were present in the axila. I had found the following injuries on her person. INJURIES 1. Linear abrasion 4 Cms linear. Scab was present on the external surface of the wrist, 2.5 Cms from the base of left thumb. 2. Abrasion 1.5 Cm on the external surface of the left wrist was present. Scab was also present. 3. Abrasion on right hand on the extensor surface 2 Cms linear, scab forming was present.7.5 Cms from the wrist. EXAMINATION OF THE PRIVATE PARTS scanty hair were present in the public. Vagina admitted two finger. The hymen was absent. Cervics directed upward. Uterus retroverted, normal size. On Salwar of the victim, two vaginal swabs, two vaginal smears were sent to the Chemical Examiners in a sealed packet bearing nine seals. 7 Injuries No.1 to 3 were simple in nature. Injury No.1 was caused by blunt weapon, whereas injuries No.2 and 3 were caused by nails. Within the duration of 72 hours. " Jawar Lal PW5 tendered in evidence affidavit ex. PN, Constable Jagdish PW6 tendered his affidavit Ex. PQ. Munshi husband of the prosecutrix appeared as PW7. He corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix and stated that he came in the village on 7.3.1994. The incident was narrated to him. He approached the sarpanch for amicable settlement. After waiting, the report was made on 8.3.1994. Prosecutrix reiterated what was stated in the FIR. She withstood the test of cross-examination and defence could not gain anything worth consideration. Siri Kishan, Retired Patwari appeared as PW9. He proved Aks Sajra ex. PR. 8. Si Tula Ram, Investigating Officer appeared as PW10. He stated that he got photographed the place of occurrence, took into possession four pieces of bangles vide recovery memo Ex. PE. Similar one bangle was on the hand of prosecutrix. That was also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PF. He produced the prosecutrix before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, mohindergarh who recorded her statement under Sec.164 Cr. P. C. . 9. All incriminating evidence was put to the accused and his statement under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. was recorded. Similar one bangle was on the hand of prosecutrix. That was also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PF. He produced the prosecutrix before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, mohindergarh who recorded her statement under Sec.164 Cr. P. C. . 9. All incriminating evidence was put to the accused and his statement under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. was recorded. He denied all incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. No witness was produced in defence. 10. Mr. RAHUL Vats appearing for the appellant has stated that prosecutrix was aged 50 years. Her menopause had set in. Her breast was sagging. She was only having 8-8/7-7 teeth. Therefore, there was nothing for the young man like the appellant to ravish the prosecutrix and the entire version is false. 11. Mr. DEEPAK Jindal, Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State has submitted that no prosecutrix will falsely implicate any one and put her reputation at stake. 12. I have perused the entire evidence. No where the appellant has taken stand that it was a case of sexual intercourse due to consent. From the tenor of cross-examination, statement under Sec.313 cr. P. C. and even during the course of arguments before me, no where story that appellant committed sexual intercourse due to consent has been projected. The defence has also not even suggested that due to enmity or party faction, appellant has been falsely implicated. Appellant and the prosecutrix are residents of the same village. Rather, it has come in evidence that immediately after the occurrence prosecutrix came to the mother of the appellant. Thus, it cannot be believed that the prosecutrix will put her and her familys reputation at stake and will falsely implicate the appellant. In the present day, it is settled legal position that in case the testimony of the prosecutrix inspire confidence, reliance can be placed upon her testimony without seeking corroboration. But in the present case, broken bangles have been recovered from the spot. Prosecutrix had immediately narrated her version to her husband. Thus sufficient corroboration is available to the deposition made by prosecutrix. Therefore, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed being devoid of any merit.