JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann, J. (Oral).:-The appellant was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, for an offence under Section 376 IPC on the allegations that on 5.5.1997 at about 10.00 a.m. he committed rape upon the prosecutrix, aged about 12 years. Vide judgment and order dated 10.12.1998, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo furgther rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. According to the prosecution, the complainant, who was father of the prosecutrix, was married about 18 years before the incident. He had one son and four daughters. The prosecutrix, who was aged about 12 years and studying in 5th class in the village Primary School, was his eldest daughter. On 7.5.1997, in the morning, the prosecutrix told her mother in the presence of the complainant that on 5.5.1997 at about 10.00 a.m., the appellant had sent her from the class to keep the register in the room and he also came behind her. After bolting the room of the school from inside, he committed rape upon her, besides, threatening her that in case she narrated the incident to anyone, she would be killed. On account of the same, the prosecutrix did not disclose about the incident to anyone till the time when she informed her mother. She also did not go to the school. On learning about the same, the complainant went to the village Sarpanch and after taking him along, was proceeding to the Police Station to lodge a report, when on the way, he came across ASI Sher Singh, to whom he got recorded his statement on the basis of which FIR No. 101 dated 8.5.1997 was registered at Police Station, Sangrur against the appellant under Section 376 IPC. 3. During the investigation of the case, ASI Sher Singh inspected the place of incident and prepared its rough site plan. He also recorded the statement of the prosecutrix and sent her to Civil Hospital, Sangrur for her medical examination. The statements of the witnesses were recorded at the spot. The appellant was arrested on 9.5.1997 and was produced before the doctor, who found him fit to commit sexual intercourse. He also recorded the statement of the prosecutrix and sent her to Civil Hospital, Sangrur for her medical examination. The statements of the witnesses were recorded at the spot. The appellant was arrested on 9.5.1997 and was produced before the doctor, who found him fit to commit sexual intercourse. He obtained certificate regarding the age of the prosecutrix, besides, getting her ossification test from Civil Hospital, Sangrur. After completion of the investigation and other formalities, the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. The case was then committed to the Court of Sessions where charge under Section 376 IPC was framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Neelam Gupta, Teacher, Government Primary School, Fatehgarh Chhanna, who proved date of birth of the prosecutrix as 15.12.1985, as recorded in the admission register. PW2 Bharpur Kaur, Block Primary Education Officer, Sangrur, deposed about the appellant being posted as a Teacher in Government Primary School, Fatehgarh Chhanna from 1994 to 1997. She also proved the copy of attendance register of the appellant. PW3 HC Bhim Sain tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PD. The scaled site plan Ex.PE was proved by PW4 Dharminder Singh, Draftsman. PW6 Kewal Krishan, Statistical Assistant in the office of C.M.O. Sangrur, deposed about the absence of entry in the register regarding the birth of the prosecutrix. Dr. Renu Singla, who had conducted medical examination of the prosecutrix, appeared as PW7. The father of the prosecutrix, who had made a statement before the police on the basis of which FIR was registered, appeared as PW8 while the prosecutrix herself appeared as PW9. Jagat Singh, Sarpanch of village Fatehgarh Chhanna while appearing as PW10, deposed that he was informed by the complainant about the appellant having committed rape upon the prosecutrix in the school. PW11 Dr. Suresh Kumar Singla, Radiologist proved the ossification report Ex.PL, as per which the age of the prosecutrix was 12½ to 15 years. ASI Sher Singh, who was the Investigating Officer, appeared as PW12. Some part of the investigation was deposed to by PW5 ASI Devinder Singh. Similarly, PW13 Constable Jagmohan Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.PM. The prosecution also tendered report Ex.PR of the Chemical Examiner and document mark ‘A’ in evidence and closed its evidence. 5. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the prosecution allegations. Some part of the investigation was deposed to by PW5 ASI Devinder Singh. Similarly, PW13 Constable Jagmohan Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.PM. The prosecution also tendered report Ex.PR of the Chemical Examiner and document mark ‘A’ in evidence and closed its evidence. 5. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the prosecution allegations. According to him, he had been falsely implicated due to personal enmity with Jagat Singh, Sarpanch, who connived with the local police in getting the case registered against him. When called upon to enter into defence, he had examined DW1 Harminder Singh, DW2 Daljit Singh and DW3 Bachan Singh. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on record, the trial Court believed the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned above. 7. It has appeared in the testimony of PW7 Dr. Renu Singla that the prosecutrix was moderately built and moderately nourished. There was no external mark of injury on her face, lips, breasts, abdomen, thighs or elsewhere, except 1 cm abrasion on external area, which seemed to be fresh with no scalp formation. Secondary sex characteristics were not fully developed. Breasts developed. Axillary hair were also not present and pubic hair were not present. On local examination, pubic hair were found absent. There was no mark of injury on external genitalia or thighs. There was no fresh tear, no bleeding per vagina. Hymen admitted two fingers, old hymen tear was present. Vagina was normal. There was no tear and no bleeding. Cervix were normal. Uterus was of small size. Fornices were clear. Cervical smear slide and swab stick from posterior fornix were taken and sent for chemical examination. Clothes were not sent as she was not having clothes, which she was wearing during the act. The patient was brought at 4.30 p.m. by the ASI and her mother was accompanying her. In cross-examination, Dr. Renu Singla denied the suggestion that no rape had been committed on the prosecutrix. 8. The prosecutrix, while appearing as PW9 stated in clear terms that it was the appellant, who had sent her to a room in the School for placing the register there. The appellant followed her to that room and after bolting the room from inside, he committed rape upon her. 8. The prosecutrix, while appearing as PW9 stated in clear terms that it was the appellant, who had sent her to a room in the School for placing the register there. The appellant followed her to that room and after bolting the room from inside, he committed rape upon her. The incident of rape had taken place on 5.5.1997 at about 10.00 a.m. However, on account of the threat extended by the appellant, the prosecutrix did not narrate the incident either to her mother or to her father. It was only in the morning of 7.5.1997 that she took courage to inform her mother about the incident. At that time, her father was also present there. On being informed, the father of the prosecutrix went to the village Sarpanch. Thereafter, both of them started for the Police Station to lodge a report but on the way they came across ASI Sher Singh PW12, who recorded the complainant’s statement on the basis of which formal FIR was registered against the appellant. 9. The crucial issue in the present case is about the age of the prosecutrix. According to the complainant, his daughter was 12 years of age. As per entry in the admission register, which stands proved by PW1 Neelam Gupta, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 15.12.1985. Therefore, on 5.5.1997, the prosecutrix was 11½ years of age. As per the ossification report Ex.PL proved by PW11 Dr. Suresh Kumar Singla, the age of the prosecutrix was between 12½ to 15 years. A half hearted attempt was made by the defence to show that the prosecutrix was born on 10.11.1981. In this regard, it brought on record certificate Ex.DB. The said certificate, however, is not connected with the prosecutrix, as the name of the mother of the girl was mentioned therein as Sukhwant Kaur whereas the name of the mother of the prosecutrix was Jaswant Kaur. Even if the said certificate is taken to be correct, still the prosecutrix was 15½ years of age on the date of incident. In view of the above, this Court has no other option but to hold that the prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age on the date of commission of rape. 10. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC. 11. In view of the above, this Court has no other option but to hold that the prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age on the date of commission of rape. 10. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC. 11. However, the sentence of ten years imposed upon the appellant is slightly on the higher side. This Court is of the considered view that instead of being sentenced to ten years imprisonment, the appellant be required to undergo minimum sentence of seven years as provided by Section 376(1) IPC. 12. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC is maintained. His sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. However, the sentence of fine alongwith its default clause is maintained. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. -------------------