JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J (oral): The appellant felt aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against him by the learned trial Court in Sessions trial No.9 of 2010, on 17.7.2010, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of ‘25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The period of detention undergone by the appellant herein, to be referred as “the accused”, during the investigation and trial was ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C., hence the present appeal. 2. Precisely, the facts giving rise to the present appeal can be stated thus. The prosecutrix- a Nepali and her husband PW1 Chinda a local resident are agriculturist residing in remote area of Chamba. They have reared about 20-25 goats and have few cattle heads. The prosecutrix is quite a rustic villager.(ii)It is alleged that on 27th February, 2010, the prosecutrix alongwith her husband had gone to the jungle to graze her goats, but some of the goats went missing, thus, her husband leaving behind the prosecutrix sitting on a bed cover sheet with the remaining goats, went in search of other goats in ‘Kharase Wala Cho jungle’.(iii) It is alleged that the accused appeared from somewhere finding the prosecutrix alone caught hold of her and committedrape. She cried for help. Her husband PW1 Chinda got attracted by the cries came to the spot and saw the accused zipping up his pant. In the meantime PW6 Pawan Kumar @ Goga also came there. He saw him running. Both of them apprehended the accused. Prosecutrix was sent home and they brought him to the village.(iv)Accused begged pardon. Prosecutrix also narrated about the incident to PW3 Smt. Neelam Kumari as also PW5 Ram Asri. Thereafter PW1 Chinda lodged the FIR Ext.PA on the same day.(v)Police got the prosecutrix medically examined, from Dr. Mrs. Pushpa Wali Raizada on the same day. Though she did not find any mark of violence on the body of the prosecutrix, but her wearing apparels were taken into possession and sealed for forensic examination. The chemical report disclosed that the human semen was detected on the Salwar Ext.P-1 of the prosecutrix. Mrs. Pushpa Wali Raizada on the same day. Though she did not find any mark of violence on the body of the prosecutrix, but her wearing apparels were taken into possession and sealed for forensic examination. The chemical report disclosed that the human semen was detected on the Salwar Ext.P-1 of the prosecutrix. In the opinion of the doctor, prosecutrix wassubjected to coitus, thus she issued final opinion Ext.PW9/A.(vi) Accused was arrested. He was also subjected to the medical examination from PW4 Dr.Vinod Dhiman. In his opinion, the accused was found fit to perform the sexual intercourse. His pant was taken in to possession and sealed, thereafter sent for forensic examination. (vii) TheForensic ScienceLaboratory conducted DNA test as per report Ext.PW1 1/A. The DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of accused completely matched with the DNA profile obtained from his pant Ext.P-5. Further the DNA profile also obtained from the blood sample of prosecutrix also matched with the DNA profile obtained from the said pant of the accused, worn by him at the time of incident. (viii)Police prepared the site plan Ext.PW12/A of the place of alleged incident and also took photograph Exts.PW12/C to E. 3.After completing the investigation, challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the accused. He was accordingly charge-sheeted and tried for the said offence. 4.To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and the accused was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5.During the trial, the accused took up the defence that he was a servant of the complainant party. Since his marriage was fixed, he demanded money of his wages to which they denied and thus a false case was foisted upon him. 6.Learned trial Court disbelieved the defence, however while relying upon the statement of prosecutrix and other supporting material, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid, hence the present appeal. 7.Shri Amit Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which rendered the prosecution case doubtfully and further that the defence raised by the accused was wrongly ignored. According to him, the injuries which the prosecutrix is stated to have sustained during the alleged forcible sexual assault were not found by the doctor on her person, therefore, her testimony is not worth inspiring confidence. 8. According to him, the injuries which the prosecutrix is stated to have sustained during the alleged forcible sexual assault were not found by the doctor on her person, therefore, her testimony is not worth inspiring confidence. 8. Shri P.M. Negi, learned Deputy AdvocateGeneral supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully and cautiously examined the evidence on record. 10.It is now well settled that the evidence of the prosecutrix is much reliable than that of an injured witness. The testimony of the victim of sexual assault is vital unless there are compelling reasons which necessitated looking for corroboration on her statement. If the statement of the prosecutrix is worth inspiring confidence and is found to be reliable, it is sufficient material to convict the accused for the said offence. 11.The defence raised by the accused in this case does not appear to be compelling which necessitated the complainant to frame him in such arduous act, of which a woman would feel ashamed, throughout her life. Further, the accused has failed to prove that he was working as servant with the complainant party to graze the cattle/ goats, as alleged. 12.Even though, the doctor did not find any injury on the person of the prosecutrix, but it is not sufficient to discard her statement when there is overwhelming evidence to prove the offence. The prosecutrix during trial testified that she had gone to the jungle to graze the goats alongwith her husband. Some goats were found missing, thus her husband made her to sit on a fabric sheet and himself went in search of the missing goats. The accused came to the spot and caught hold of her from the backside, laid her down and committed rape. She cried for help. She also stated that PW6 Pawan Kumar @ Goga came to the spot and this version is also corroborated by him. On hearing the cries, PW1 Chinda also came to the spot and he stated that on seeing him, the accused put on his pant and took on his heels. She also stated about the arrival of PW6 Pawan Kumar on the spot. He corroborated her version. Further the prosecutrix complained about the rape by the accused to them. PW1 and PW6 aforesaid stated that they apprehended the accused. She also stated about the arrival of PW6 Pawan Kumar on the spot. He corroborated her version. Further the prosecutrix complained about the rape by the accused to them. PW1 and PW6 aforesaid stated that they apprehended the accused. He confessed his guilt and according to PW6 Pawan Kumar, he begged pardon for his wrong act and requested not to disclose this fact to the villagers. When he had made confession, the prosecutrix was sent by her husband to her home. 13.In cross-examination, the presence of PW6 Pawan Kumar @ Goga is admitted. He was grazing cattle at a distance of 20 meters from the place where the prosecutrix was allegedly sitting. He expressed his ignorance about the fact that the accused was a servant with the complainant party. This fact has been specifically denied by PW1 Chinda in his cross- examination 14.PW3 Neelam Kumari stated that the prosecutrix had revealed about the incident to her and the bed- sheet Ext.P4 over which she was sitting was taken into possession by the police. PW5 Ram Asri also made the similar statement, but though admitted that accused was grazing goats of Chinda, whereas, PW9 Dr. Mrs. Pushpa Wali Raizada did not overrule the possibility of sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. 15.On the critical examination of the aforesaid evidence, I do not find any infirmity in the statement of the prosecutrix. It is worth inspiring confidence and is duly corroborated by the independent witnesses and the medical evidence. She was got medically examined on the same day around 11.30 p.m. Her wearing apparels were taken into possession by the doctor, which were sealed and sent for chemical examination. The Salwar Ext.P1, Bed Sheet Ext.P4 of the prosecutrix and pant Ext.P5 of the accused contained the human semen as per report Ext.PW1 1/A. The DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of accused completely matched with the DNA profile obtained from his pant Ext.P-5. Further the DNA profile also obtained from the blood sample of prosecutrix matched with the DNA profile obtained from the said pant of the accused. Therefore, there is overwhelming evidence that the accused stands connected with the alleged offence and I do not find any fault in the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, there is overwhelming evidence that the accused stands connected with the alleged offence and I do not find any fault in the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 16.Confronted with the above situation, learnedcounsel for the accused submitted that the accused is an unmarried youth. He is in the jail from the date of his arrest and belongs to a poor family, therefore, leniency in the sentence may be shown. 17.I have considered the above arguments. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the age of the prosecutrix and that of the accused coupled with the plight of the accused. Further the accused is not a previous convict, therefore, the substantive sentence of seven years is reduced to five years and the rigorous imprisonment for two years in default of payment of fine is also reduced to simple imprisonment for six months. With these modifications in the sentence, the appeal stands accordingly disposed of. 18.Learned trial Court is hereby directed to send a modified warrant in conformity with this judgment, to the Superintendent, Jail concerned. 19.Send down the records.