1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.03.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Reasi, whereby appellant came to be convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of Ranbir Penal Code and sentenced for a period of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (hereinafter, for short, as impugned order), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. SUMMARY OF THE CASE 2. FIR 84/2007 came to be registered at Police Station Reasi against the appellant-accused for the commission of offence under Section 376 RPC. Final report/Challan under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure came to be filed by the Police before the Court of Sub Judge, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Reasi, who committed the same to the Court of Sessions Judge, Reasi. Appellant-accused was charge sheeted vide order dated 07.07.2007, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses in support of its case and the evidence of the prosecution was closed on 30.01.2009. Statement of appellant-accused was also recorded on 06.02.2009, he was asked to enter upon defence, but he did not lead any evidence in defence. Thus, the evidence led by the prosecution has remained unrebuted. 3. The trial court after examining the entire material and the prosecution witness held that the accused is involved in the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 RFC and was convicted and sentenced in terms of the impugned order. 4. It is worthwhile to mention here that the defence counsel has failed to shatter/demolish the evidence of prosecution while conducting cross-examination. Prosecutrix, namely, Bandana Devi, has deposed that on 27.05.2007 her father, an employee in the Shrine Board, was on leave and had gone to his native Village Gorhi and she was alone in her rented room at Mahadev. Appellant-accused came on the motorcycle, barged inside her room, asked about the whereabout of her father and other relations and when she told that they all were in their native village, he bolted the room from inside, caught her and tied her mouth with a cloth and, thereafter, forcibly raped her, while as she gave a fist blow on his right eye and he then left her free. Meanwhile, neighbours and her father came on-spot and shifted her to hospital. 5. Meanwhile, neighbours and her father came on-spot and shifted her to hospital. 5. All other witnesses have corroborated the prosecution version. It would be appropriate to reproduce the statement of Dr. Mohan Kumar Atri hereunder. "He has stated that he examined the accused medically and found him sexually fit. He has also examined the prosecutrix and has found that she was used to sexual intercourse but there was no sign of violence in her body except a bruise of the dimension 5 W 3 cms on left side of her face. No stain/semen stains were found on her cloths or pubic area. The witness has admitted his reports about accused and the prosecutrix, Ext-P8/1 and Ext-P8/2 to be correct. In his cross examination, he says that he is not a Gynaecologist and he could not examine the prosecutrix because he is not a qualified Gynaecologist although the examination of prosecutrix was conducted in presence of Gynaecologist." 6. A perusal of the file as well as the record of trial court reveals that the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the accused has not led any defence in order to establish that he was falsely implicated or the prosecutrix was a consenting party. Thus, there is nothing on the file which can be made basis for holding that prosecution had given false statement or she had tried to falsely implicate the accused. The trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence while holding the accused guilty of the offence committed. 7. Having glance of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused. 8. Appellant-accused is in the lock-up right from 27th May 2007 and has served five years, eight months and seventeen days till today. It also appears that he is entitled to remission as per the jail Manual. 9. Viewed thus, the appeal is dismissed. Send down the trial court record.