JUDGMENT : KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. 1. Instant appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 10.08.2016 rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Kishangarhbas, Alwar, whereby the appellant was held guilty of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Having convicted the appellant for the above said offence, the ld. trial Judge, vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the appellant to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year additional simple imprisonment. 3. In the present case, the criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of the written-report (Exhibit-P/1) submitted by the prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity). 4. The said written-report (Exhibit-P/1), when translated into English reads as under :- "To, The Station House Officer Saheb, Police Station, Kishangarhbas, Alwar Subject : Regarding lodging of the report. Sir, It is submitted that yesterday i.e. on 26.08.2014 at about 08:30 P.M. I have gone from my house to the jungle to ease myself, then Rahmu son of Shri Sitab Mev, who was already present there, forcibly dragged me in the millet field. I raised protest then he showed me a country-made-pistol and threatened that in case I raise any noise, I will be finished. Thereafter, he committed rape with me and had torn my clothes. After committing bad act, accused ran away from the spot. Thereafter, I returned to my house and narrated the whole incident to the family members and husband. They told me that now night had fallen, in the morning they will talk. In the morning, our family members went to the house of Rahmu then Rahmu threatened to kill them and made attempt to beat them and stated that whatever was to be done has been done and whatever you can do you may do. Therefore, I have come to present the report without delay. After registration of the report, legal action be taken. Applicant (name withheld to protect her identity) resident of Odra, Police Station Kishangarhbas, Alwar" 5. It may be noted here that the prosecutrix in the present case, when examined by the ld. trial Court as PW-1 had given her age as forty-years. In the Court, prosecutrix has reiterated the same version as stated by her in the written-report (Exhibit-P/1). Applicant (name withheld to protect her identity) resident of Odra, Police Station Kishangarhbas, Alwar" 5. It may be noted here that the prosecutrix in the present case, when examined by the ld. trial Court as PW-1 had given her age as forty-years. In the Court, prosecutrix has reiterated the same version as stated by her in the written-report (Exhibit-P/1). She further proved her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 as Exhibit-P/2. In cross-examination, she denied that the accused has been falsely implicated due to enmity and pendency of the litigation. She further denied that Asmina, her cousin had lodged a case against her Devers and in the said case present accused was a witness. 6. Khurshid (PW-2), husband of the prosecutrix appeared as PW-2 and corroborated testimony of the prosecutrix to the effect that the prosecutrix returned to the house and had narrated the entire incident. 7. Dr. Shivani Gaur (PW-4), being Medical Officer at Community Health Centre, Kishangarhbas, on 29.08.2014 at 11:50 A.M. had examined the prosecutrix. Admittedly, neither on the private parts nor on the body of the prosecutrix any injury had been found. Dr. Shivani Gaur (PW-4) further admitted that in case, the prosecutrix is dragged on rough patch, the possibility of sufferance of injury cannot be ruled out. 8. The prosecution, in all, examined ten witnesses, namely prosecutrix (PW-1), Khurshid (PW-2), Ramzan (PW-3), Dr. Shivani Gaur (PW-4), Mustaq (PW-5), Juber (PW-6), Sadhuram (PW-7), Surendra Singh (PW-8), Sunil Kumar (PW-9) and Amit Kumar (PW-10) respectively. 9. Amit Kumar (PW-10), Investigating Officer, in cross-examination, has stated that he is not aware that in any case accused was cited as a witness against the family members of the prosecutrix. 10. This Court need not notice rest of the testimony of the Investigating Officer and the other witnesses, who had participated in the investigation of the case. 11. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 has taken a definite stand that he has been falsely implicated. 12. 10. This Court need not notice rest of the testimony of the Investigating Officer and the other witnesses, who had participated in the investigation of the case. 11. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 has taken a definite stand that he has been falsely implicated. 12. Be that as it may, in the present case, occurrence has taken place on 26.08.2014 at 08:30 P.M., the written-report to this effect was submitted on the next date i.e. on 27.08.2014 at 11:15 A.M. and even though the prosecutrix, is aged about forty-years, this Court cannot ignore that in the Indian Society a woman has to muster a lot of courage to put reputation of the family at the stake. The accused has not proved any document from which it can be inferred that he has been named falsely because he has been cited as a witness against the family members of the prosecutrix. 13. Therefore, a bald suggestion given to the witness and the stand taken in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 without any corroborative documents, cannot be accepted. 14. The prosecutrix has specifically stated that she had been threatened to kill and made to fall in the millet field, therefore, it is not necessary that the prosecutrix has to suffer injury because of dragging. The testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be brushed aside, merely because she has not suffered any injury on her body. 15. As stated earlier, the defence has failed to prove any inimical relations or enmity between the parties. 16. Ramzan (PW-3) has specifically stated that from the field broken bangle was lifted by the Police. He has further stated that even though, no injury was present on the person of the prosecutrix but her clothes were torn. 17. Taking totality of the circumstances, the prosecution has succeeded to prove charge of rape falling within the ambit of Section 376 I.P.C. against the present appellant. However, considering the fact that the prosecutrix was aged about forty-years and the present appellant, as per impugned judgment is also, aged about forty-five years, this Court is of the view that the sentence of ten-years awarded by the ld. trial Court is highly excessive and no reason was stated by the ld. trial Court as to why more than minimum sentence was required to be imposed. 18. trial Court is highly excessive and no reason was stated by the ld. trial Court as to why more than minimum sentence was required to be imposed. 18. Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant. However, the sentence awarded upon the appellant in the above terms is reduced from ten years to seven years rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the sentence of fine and default clause.