JUDGMENT Sabina, J. Appellant had faced trial in FIR No.130/2009 registered at Police Station Sadar Jaipur City (South), for offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Prosecution story in brief is that the prosecutrix knew the appellant. Both of them were rag-pickers and used to sleep on the foot-path. Prosecutrix developed physical relations with the appellant as he had assured her that he would perform marriage with her. As a result, prosecutrix became pregnant and gave birth to a girl child. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined five witnesses. Appellant then examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. 5. Trial court vide judgment/order dated 24th February, 2010 ordered conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 376 IPC. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant-accused. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned State Counsel and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. 7. Prosecutrix while appearing in the witness box as PW-1 deposed as per the prosecution story. Statement of the prosecutrix was corroborated by PW-2 Ashraf. 8. PW-3 Dr. Dinesh Dutt Mathur deposed that he had medico legal examined the appellant on 9th June, 2009 and had opined that he was aged about 18 years. 9. PW-4 Dr. Priyanka Sharma deposed that on 2nd May, 2009, after examination of the prosecutrix had opined that she was aged about 14 to 16 years. She proved the report Ex. P-4, the medico legal examination report of the prosecutrix. A perusal of the same, reveals that note has been given on the same that the prosecutrix had delivered a female child on 29th April, 2009. 10. PW-5 Kailash Chandra Bohara deposed with regard to the investigation conducted by him. 11. In the present case, prosecutrix and the appellant was having physical relations. Case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix had developed physical relations with the appellant as he had assured that he would perform marriage with her. However, when the prosecutrix became pregnant, appellant fled away. Prosecutrix gave birth to a girl child on 29th April, 2009. Appellant was arrested on 8th June, 2009. 12. Prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the commission of offence. However, when the prosecutrix became pregnant, appellant fled away. Prosecutrix gave birth to a girl child on 29th April, 2009. Appellant was arrested on 8th June, 2009. 12. Prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the commission of offence. From the prosecution evidence it stands duly established that the appellant was guilty of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial court had rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed.