Judgment KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. Sunder alias Surender son of Kartar Singh, aged 19 years, resident of Ward No.10, Tosham, District Bhiwani has challenged the judgment delivered by Sessions Judge, Bhiwani whereby he was held guilty of offence under Section 376 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Prosecutrix was also resident of the same Ward. On 11th August, 1996, prosecutrix appeared in the Police Station accompanied by her mother Jarmanti and grandfather Balbir Singh. On statement made by her, FIR Ex. PK was registered. As per the mandate given by Honble Supreme Court, name of the prosecutrix has been withheld. 2. Prosecutrix gave her age to be 13/14 years and stated that she was a student of 8th Class and was having one sister and one brother. Her father was ill from last many days. Her mother Jarmanti had gone to bring fodder for the cattle. She was present in her house and had not gone to school, as 11th August, 1996 was Sunday. At about 11.00 a. m. she had gone to forest on the back side of the Bank to ease herself. At that time accused appellant was sitting behind the Kikkar trees. He caught hold of the prosecutrix, gagged her mouth and forcibly committed rape. The accused, after commission of sexual intercourse, ran away from the spot. The prosecutrix came back to her house and narrated the occurrence to her mother and waited for arrival of her grandfather Balbir Singh and thereafter, she accompanied by them came to the Police Station to lodge report. 3. The matter was investigated and report under Sec.173 was submitted. Appellant was charged for offence under Sec.376 IPC. The charge stated that on 11th August, 1996 at about 11.00 a. m. in the area of village tosham, he had committed rape upon the prosecutrix. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Dr. OM Parkash PW-1 examined the accused on 12th August, 1996 at 7.10 p. m. and opined that accused appellant was capable of performing sexual intercourse. Diwan Singh Patwari, Halqa Tosham appeared as PW-2. He proved the scaled site plan Ex. PD. Mange Ram PW-3, Tax Clerk of Municipal Committee, tosham brought the birth register maintained in the Municipal Committee, tosham. This witness deposed that as per the record, date of birth of the prosecutrix was 25th November, 1981. Diwan Singh Patwari, Halqa Tosham appeared as PW-2. He proved the scaled site plan Ex. PD. Mange Ram PW-3, Tax Clerk of Municipal Committee, tosham brought the birth register maintained in the Municipal Committee, tosham. This witness deposed that as per the record, date of birth of the prosecutrix was 25th November, 1981. Prosecution tendered in evidence, affidavit Ex. PF and PG of Bhup Singh Moharrar Head Constable and Constable vijender Singh respectively. Affidavit of Head Constable Udmi Ram Ex. PH was also tendered. These three witnesses were examined to prove link evidence but defence opted not to cross examine them. Dr. Sadhna Anand PW-4 medico legally examined the prosecutrix on 12th August, 1996 at 3.30 p. m. The observations of this witness, who was then posted as medical Officer in General Hospital, Bhiwani, can be noticed as under: "on examination, I found that the Patient was conscious, cooperative, well oriented to time and place. Pulse regular, 90 per minute. Respiration 18 per minute, regular. She was complaining of some difficulty and pain in walking. Menstrual history Not started menstruating. She was referred to Radiologist for determination of age. She was unmarried. On external examination, no marks of injury anywhere over the body. On examination of breasts breast formation started and no evidence of external injury mark. Examination of thigh and abdomen No mark of injury seen. pubic hair not matted and were sent for chemical examination. On internal examination, on per vaginum examination, I could introduce two fingers with slight pain. The hymen was ruptured, with fresh bleeding present at ruptured site. Swabs were taken from vagina and cervix and sent for chemical analysis. " 5. Prosecutrix appeared as PW-5. She reiterated the version given by her in the fir. It was further stated by her in cross examination, that house of the accused Sunder was at a short distance from her house and only 6 or 7 houses fall between the house of the prosecutrix and the accused. Jarmanti mother of the prosecutrix appeared as PW-6 and corroborated the version given by the prosecutrix. ASI Anup Singh appeared as PW-7. He proved various facets of the investigation. Jarmanti mother of the prosecutrix appeared as PW-6 and corroborated the version given by the prosecutrix. ASI Anup Singh appeared as PW-7. He proved various facets of the investigation. He also disclosed that the special report was sent through constable Satbir Singh and same reached Illaqua Magistrate on 12th August, 1996 at 11.45 p. m. PW-8 Constable Satbir Singh was primarily cross examined regarding the time of reaching of the special report. In cross examination, this witness stated that he had delivered the special report to the Chief judicial Magistrate at his residence on the same night, at about 12.30 a. m. i. e. the night intervening 11th and 12th august, 1996. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence. 6. Statement of the accused under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. was recorded. All incriminating circumstances were put to the accused. He asserted that it was a case of false implication due to party fraction in the village and at the instance of relations of the prosecutrix. It was further stated that the prosecutrix was having friendly relations with one Bijender Singh. 7. In defence, the accused examined Shamsher Singh as DW-1. He stated that it was learnt that a year ago, a panchayat was convened and there it was learnt that one Bijender Singh son of Mange had insulted the prosecutrix. Brahm Dev, photographer was examined as DW-2. He proved photographs Ex. D1 to D-3. These photographs pertain to the place of occurrence. Kanwar Pal, Draftsman was examined as DW-3. He proved scaled site plan Ex. DB. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence. 8. Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sudhir Sharma, appearing for the appellant, has stated that the accused had brought on record the letter mark A. This letter was put to the prosecutrix. She denied that the letter was in her handwriting. Counsel has submitted that the contents of the letter proves that the prosecutrix was having affair with the appellant. This contention of the learned counsel is to be out rightly rejected. Prosecutrix has specifically stated that she is ready and willing to give her specimen handwriting for comparison. No effort was made to prove the letter. A document, which is marked, cannot be read. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable. This contention of the learned counsel is to be out rightly rejected. Prosecutrix has specifically stated that she is ready and willing to give her specimen handwriting for comparison. No effort was made to prove the letter. A document, which is marked, cannot be read. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable. Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the place of occurrence, according to the prosecutrix was having several trees and bushes and therefore, even if the sexual intercourse is committed by the appellant by making the prosecutrix fall on the ground, there is bound to be some scratch mark on the body of the prosecutrix. According to the counsel, no such injury was found by the Doctor. The prosecutrix had specifically stated that there was no concrete etc. at the place, where accused committed rape upon her. She stated that in fact, it was all grassy. Counsel for the appellant has sought to draw much mileage from the statement made by the prosecutrix that she had not given any teeth bite to the accused or had not given any push with leg or kicks to the accused. The prosecutrix also explained it by saying that accused had put his weight upon her, therefore, she was not in a position to do the same. No other argument has been raised. Therefore, there is no merit in the present appeal, especially when the accused appellant had sought to project that rape in fact was committed by one Bijender. This plea cannot be entertained for a while. The prosecutrix and her mother will be the last persons to substitute the person, who had committed the offence of rape. In the present case, occurrence had taken place on 11th August, 1996 at 11.00 a. m. The FIR was registered on the same day and the special report also reached to the Illaqa Magistrate on the same night from Tosham to Bhiwani. The promptness in lodging the FIR lend much credence to the version given by the prosecutrix. At this stage, Mr. Sudhir sharma has submitted that at the time of occurrence, appellant was a young boy of 19 years and the prosecutrix was also more than 15 years of age. The appellant and the prosecutrix were neighbours. The appellant in his youth, without having ability to understand the consequences, had committed the offence. At this stage, Mr. Sudhir sharma has submitted that at the time of occurrence, appellant was a young boy of 19 years and the prosecutrix was also more than 15 years of age. The appellant and the prosecutrix were neighbours. The appellant in his youth, without having ability to understand the consequences, had committed the offence. Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that a period of more than 14 years is going to elapse. The appellant has committed no other offence. Counsel has submitted that sentence awarded upon the appellant be reduced. 9. Taking into consideration the protracted trial, sentence awarded upon the appellant is reduced from ten years to seven years rigorous imprisonment, which is minimum sentence prescribed for the offence of rape. 10. With the modifications made in the sentence, noticed above, present appeal is dismissed.