Judgment KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by Rajinder Singh son of lichhman Singh. He has assailed the impugned judgment dated 5.11.1997 recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat on 5.11.1997 whereby the appellant was held guilty for offence under Sec.376 IPC. On 6.11.1997, the Court of additional Sessions Judge, Panipat passed order of sentence and the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and a fine of rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. In the appeal, it has been prayed that conviction recorded and the sentence awarded be set aside. FIR in the present case was lodged on the basis of statement made by the prosecutrix. Name of the prosecutrix is withheld so that her identity is not disclosed. In the statement, Ex. PD prosecutrix stated that she was resident of Village Kachrauli. Her father was working as a labourer. Four months before the occurrence, her mother had died. On 30.3.1996 at 4.00 A. M. , she had gone to answer the call of nature, when accused reached there. He gagged the mouth of the prosecutrix, entangled her in his arms and forcibly took her in the fields of wheat. He opened the string of salwar and committed the offence of rape. On noise raised, Ashu Ram, uncle Beeru Ram and Hukam Chand reached at the spot. Accused ran away from the spot. 2. In the present case, FIR was recorded on the same day at 1.40 P. M. Special Report reached the Illaqa Magistrate on the same day at 3.45 P. M. 3. Report under Sec.173 Cr. P. C. was submitted against the appellant. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat charged the appellant for offence under Sec.376 IPC. The charge stated that on 30.3.1996 at 4.00 P. M. sppellant committed rape of prosecutrix aged 14 years and committed offence under Sec.376 IPC. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecutrix was medico legally examined on 30.3.1996 at 4.00 P. M. By lady Dr. Abha Bhawan PW1. At that time prosecutrix had given her age as 15 years. The Medical Officer observed as under:- ". . . . On examination: General condition was fair. Secondary characters were normally developed. Breasts were normal. There was no external mark of injury. On Local Examination:- pubic hair was present. Abha Bhawan PW1. At that time prosecutrix had given her age as 15 years. The Medical Officer observed as under:- ". . . . On examination: General condition was fair. Secondary characters were normally developed. Breasts were normal. There was no external mark of injury. On Local Examination:- pubic hair was present. External genitalia and perineum were normal. Two swabs and two slides were taken from the vagina and sent to Forensic Laboratory. A fresh laceration was present at fourchette. Cruciate ruptured hymen was admitted one finger tightly. Tenderness was positive. Cervix was upright. Uterus was retroverted, nuliparous. Forences were clear and non-tender. There was no bleeding per vagina." 5 In cross-examination, this witness stated that prosecutrix was not habitual to sexual intercourse. There was fresh laceration on the vagina and it admitted one finger tightly. In the opinion of the doctor it was first attempt of sex with the prosecutrix. Hymen was ruptured and tenderness was also positive. PW2 krishan Kumar an official of the District Registrar, Births and Deaths and civil Surgeon, Panipat proved birth certificate of the prosecutrix. Birth certificate was exhibited as Ex. PB. In the Birth Certificate, date of birth of the prosecutrix recorded is 10.4.1982. Prosecutrix appeared as PW3. She reiterated what was stated in the FIR. Defence failed to elicit any answer which could advance the case of the accused. 6. Ashu Ram father of the prosecutrix appeared as PW4. Beeru who was attracted at the spot appeared as PW5. They corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix. 7. Hc Jai Singh appeared as PW6. He stated that on 30.3.1996, prosecutrix was medically examined. Her clothes, other articles and swabs were handed over by the Doctor to him. 8. Constable Jagbir Singh PW7 tendered his affidavit Ex. PJ. He carried the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate. PW8 Constable Brij Pal tendered his affidavit Ex. PX. 9. Pw9 Dr. Gulshan Bajaj examined the appellant and opined that there was nothing to suggest that appellant was not capable to perform sexual intercourse. PW10 Chander Mohan ASI proved various facets of investigation. PW11 Krishan Chander, Patwari had prepared scaled site plan Ex. PQ. He stated that site plan was prepared at Karnal. He was declared hostile and confronted with his previous statement by the Public Prosecutor. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence. 10. Statement of the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr. PW10 Chander Mohan ASI proved various facets of investigation. PW11 Krishan Chander, Patwari had prepared scaled site plan Ex. PQ. He stated that site plan was prepared at Karnal. He was declared hostile and confronted with his previous statement by the Public Prosecutor. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence. 10. Statement of the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. He denied all incriminating circumstances put to him. The accused gave his version as under:- "i am innocent. I have been falsely implicated by the father and uncle of the prosecutrix because I was having some dispute regarding kurraries with them. Santosh Kumari prosecutrix and her father Ashu Ram visited the court on 2.1.1997, purchased the stamp paper from the stamp vendor and got recorded their affidavits which were duly identified by Kartar Singh and attested by padma Rani Notary. In her affidavit, which is Ex. DA Santosh Kumari has stated her age as 18 years and she further stated that she never got recorded her age in the birth entry register. She further stated that on 30.3.1996, she was not raped by accused Rajinder Kumar. The father of the prosecutrix in her affidavit ex. DC stated that the age of the prosecutrix is 18 years and she was not raped by Rajinder on 30.3.1996 and he further stated that he never got recorded the age of the prosecutrix in any birth entry register. Both the deponents asserted that they had given the affidavits in their senses and without any duress and pressure. I was a victim of frame up story." 11. In defence Lakhmi appeared as DW1. He stated that accused bear a good moral character. He further submitted that on a complaint filed by father of the accused, a criminal case was registered at Police Station Sadar, Panipat against eight persons including real brother of Ashu, father of the prosecutrix. 12. Dw2 Kartar Singh, Advocate stated that on 2.1.1997 prosecutrix and Ashu Ram had sworn affidavits Ex. DA and Ex. DC. Smt. Padma Rani, Advocate, notary Public appeared as DW4 and stated that affidavits Ex. DA and Ex. DC were sworn before her by the prosecutrix and her father Ashu Ram. 13. Counsel for the appellant has placed much reliance on affidavits ex. DA and Ex. DC. In the affidavit Ex. DA and Ex. DC. Smt. Padma Rani, Advocate, notary Public appeared as DW4 and stated that affidavits Ex. DA and Ex. DC were sworn before her by the prosecutrix and her father Ashu Ram. 13. Counsel for the appellant has placed much reliance on affidavits ex. DA and Ex. DC. In the affidavit Ex. DA, prosecutrix had given her age as 18 years and stated that accused had not performed sexual intercourse with her. To similar effect is affidavit Ex. DC sworn by father of the prosecutrix. Counsel state that due to enmity, appellant has been falsely implicated. 14. I am not inclined to accept the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. In the present case, occurrence had taken place on 30.3.1996 at 4.00 A. M. Report was made to the police on the same day i. e.30.3.1996 at 1.40 p. M. Special Report was sent to the Illaqa Magistrate at 3.45 P. M. Prosecutrix had given her version at the earliest. Lodging of the FIR and reaching of the special Report was prompt and it contain a truthful version. Further more PW1 dr. Abha Bhawan had stated that hymen was freshly ruptured, tenderness was present, vagina admitted one finger tightly and prosecutrix was not habitual to sexual intercourse. Therefore, rape having been committed has been proved by the medical evidence. Prosecutrix will be the last person to put her reputation at stake and falsely implicate the present appellant. Affidavit Ex. DA was put to the witness. She stated that her signatures were forcibly taken and some money was given to the Notary Public. Even, if affidavit Exs. DA and DC are taken into consideration, they do not absolve the appellant of the offence, as the appellant made an attempt to prevail upon the witnesses so that they depose in his favour. The witnesses withstood the pressure and testified in the Court. Furthermore a mere suggestion has been given that witnesses deposed due to inimical relations. 15. Even if a minor litigation was pending between the parties, same cannot be the cause for implicating the appellant. This Court affirm the findings of the trial Court and reliance has been rightly placed upon the testimony of the prosecutrix and her father Ashu Ram. Thus, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. 15. Even if a minor litigation was pending between the parties, same cannot be the cause for implicating the appellant. This Court affirm the findings of the trial Court and reliance has been rightly placed upon the testimony of the prosecutrix and her father Ashu Ram. Thus, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. At this stage, counsel for the appellant has stated that occurrence has taken place in March, 1996.14 years are going to elapse. The appellant has already suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial. Taking this fact as a mitigating circumstance, sentence of eight years awarded by the trial Court under Sec.376 IPC is reduced to seven years rigorous imprisonment.