1) This criminal appeal calls in question the judgment dated 25th November, 2008, by virtue of which the appellant has been convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of the Ranbir Penal Code, hereinafter as RPC. It assails the order dated 28th November, 2008 also by virtue of which the quantum of sentence has been awarded. 2) The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and imposed a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the commission of offences punishable under Section 376 RPC; hereinafter to be referred as impugned judgment. BRIEF FACTS 3) Prosecutrix, namely Zaheen Akhter, accompanied by her mother, Kaneez Akhter Fatima, lodged a report in Police Station Mendhar, to the effect, that in the evening of 6th February, 2006, accused Mohd. Mukhtar had forcibly made her, along with her companions, to board a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. 0965/JK12, which was driven by its driver, when she was on a leisurely walk along with her minor sister, brother and cousin; the vehicle after having been driven towards village Kota, Mendhar, was stopped near a cesspool; she was separated from the group by the accused, by dragging her out of the vehicle and was subjected to rape. Thereafter, she was again made to board the same vehicle in which the other companions of the prosecutrix were dumped; thereafter all of them were allowed to alight down from the vehicle near Post Office. 4) Police, on registering said report, investigated the matter, which resulted in filing of a final report in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short as Cr.P.C, before the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Mendhar, who committed the same to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Poonch, vide order dated 13th March, 2006. The accused was charge sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 of RPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5) Prosecution, in support of its case, produced and examined PW 1 Zaheen Akhter, PW 2 Parveen Akhter, PW 3 Tanveer Ahmad, PW 5 Kaneez Akhter, PW 6 Mohammad Rafiq, PW 7 Liaqat Hussain, PW 8 Shahnawaz, PW 9 Dr. Anjum Ara, PW 10, Dr. Shameem Ahmad and PW 11 Ashiq Hussain, 1.0. 5) Prosecution, in support of its case, produced and examined PW 1 Zaheen Akhter, PW 2 Parveen Akhter, PW 3 Tanveer Ahmad, PW 5 Kaneez Akhter, PW 6 Mohammad Rafiq, PW 7 Liaqat Hussain, PW 8 Shahnawaz, PW 9 Dr. Anjum Ara, PW 10, Dr. Shameem Ahmad and PW 11 Ashiq Hussain, 1.0. 6) The evidence of the prosecution was closed vide order dated 5l April, 2007 and accused, despite having been given ample opportunities to produce evidence in defence, has failed to produce any, and lastly, defence counsel expressed his desire not to bring any witness in defence. Accordingly, right of producing evidence in defence, vide order dated 28th January, 2008, was closed. 7) Trial court after hearing counsel for the parties and after scanning the evidence, vide its order dated 25th November, 2008, came to the conclusion that prosecution has proved that accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 376 of RFC. The order of sentence was passed on 28th November, 2008. 8) It would be appropriate to give the brief resume of the prosecution evidence herein, thus:- 9) PW Zaheen Akhter has deposed that she, along with her siblings viz. sister, brother and cousin, was on a leisurely walk in the evening of 6th February, 2006, when she was intercepted by the accused who suddenly appeared on the sight and forcibly dumped them all in the vehicle. The vehicle was driven by its driver who is not known to her. He drove the vehicle on the instructions of accused towards village Kota, and stopped it near a cesspool; thereafter accused dragged her out of the vehicle and beneath the cesspool was subjected to rape. Thereafter she was made to board the vehicle again and were set off near Post Office, Mendhar. Her mother had gone to condole the demise of some relative on the relevant day. She informed her mother the next day when she came back home. Thereafter her mother accompanied her to police station to lodge a report in this behalf. 10) The statement of the witness could not be knocked down during cross examination. 11) Other witnesses have supported her version. Statement of PW Dr. Anjum Ara is reproduced below: "Questioned by the PP states that on 7.2.2006 I was posted as Assistant Surgeon in the Sub District Hospital, Mendhar. 10) The statement of the witness could not be knocked down during cross examination. 11) Other witnesses have supported her version. Statement of PW Dr. Anjum Ara is reproduced below: "Questioned by the PP states that on 7.2.2006 I was posted as Assistant Surgeon in the Sub District Hospital, Mendhar. That on the said date I examined Zaheen Akhter D/o Tanweer Hussain R/o Mendhar who was brought by Ashiq Hussain Head Constable Police Station, Mendhar. On her examination I noticed the following: On general physical examination she was conscious, Cooperative, well oriented to time place and person. She came with normal gait, clean cloths. No mark of violence was detected over any part of body. On local examination pubic hairs were clean, perineum and legs were clean with no injuries, secretions and stains. Labia majora were well developed. Labia minore soft, non tender. Hymen was absent. Vaginal was roomy, non-tender, walls were pinkish, having no bleeding, no discharge. Vagina was allowing tip of two fingers without causing much difficulty. Smear taken from posterior formix of vagina on two slides with registration number (26) and signed by undersigned sent for miscroscopic examination. Laboratory section reported that there was no spermatozoa alive/dead in the vaginal smear. In my opinion after general physical examination, local examination and report of lab. Section I am of the opinion that no forcible sexual intercourse has taken place with the examinee however, the findings were suggestive of being habitual of sexual intercourse. Accordingly I issued the certificate which is on the file. Its contents are true and correct. It is in my hand writing and it bears my signature. Note: It is marked as EXPW AA. In cross-examination by the counsel for the accused the witness deposed that I had examined the lady whole. There was no teeth biting on the cheeks of lady. There was no bruises on the thighs of fore legs. There was also no bruises or scratches on the abdomen of the lady. There was no blood stained on the thighs of the prosecutrix. If the girls is vergin the signs of sexual intercourse is there within 24 hrs. In this case there was no signs of rape. I have examined the shilwar of the prosecutrix but there was no blood stains or semen on the shilwar. Mansulation period can be irregular. There was no blood stained on the thighs of the prosecutrix. If the girls is vergin the signs of sexual intercourse is there within 24 hrs. In this case there was no signs of rape. I have examined the shilwar of the prosecutrix but there was no blood stains or semen on the shilwar. Mansulation period can be irregular. No further questioned was put to the witness." 12) Accused failed to lead evidence in defence and has not taken any specific stance at the time of framing of charge or at the time of making statement under Section 342 of Cr.P.C. 13) There is nothing on the file which can make the court to believe that the prosecutrix has been lying or accused is being falsely implicated. She has vividly given the details of the occurrence. She has been made the victim, and subjected to rape. It would be profitable to reproduce relevant portion of Section 375 of the Ranbir Penal Code herein, thus: "375. RAPE : A man is said to have committed 'rape' who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:- Sixthly- With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age". 14) There is sufficient evidence on the file which is indicative of the fact that prosecutrix was below 16 years of age at the time of incident, therefore, she being a consenting party or otherwise looses significance. Seen from any angle, the fact of prosecutrix having been subjected to sexual intercourse, is explicit and the same has not been dislodged by the defence in any way; and trial court after examining the entire case, came to the conclusion that prosecution has succeeded in bringing guilt home against the accused and that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident. 15) The mandate of Section 375 of RPC is that if a prosecutrix is below 16 years of age, it would be immaterial as to whether she was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse. Having said so, the conviction awarded by the trial court requires to be upheld. 16) In the given circumstances, I am of the considered view that prosecution has succeeded in bringing guilt home against the accused and trial court has rightly convicted the accused. Having said so, the conviction awarded by the trial court requires to be upheld. 16) In the given circumstances, I am of the considered view that prosecution has succeeded in bringing guilt home against the accused and trial court has rightly convicted the accused. The accused had been in custody from the date of his arrest viz. 24.02.2006 till today, therefore, has undergone more than six years of rigorous imprisonment. 16) Thus, I deem it proper to modify the order of sentence by providing that accused is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years instead of ten years and the amount of fine awarded is raised to Rs. 10,000/- payable to the prosecutrix and accused/appellant is directed to deposit the same. In default of doing so, he shall undergo imprisonment for a further period of one year. The order of sentence is accordingly modified. 17) The appeal is disposed of on the above terms. 18) Send down the record.