Sobhag Mal Jain, J.
1. This appeal by the accused sent through jail is directed against the judgment dated the 20th June, 1984 of the Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, camp at Chittorgarh, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 376 IPC to four years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for two months.
2. The case relates to the incident of rape which took place in the morning of February 16, 1982 in the khala of village Sukhpura with Narbada aged about 11 years. The prosecution case in brief is that when Marbada was on her way to the field of her father the accused met her, took her to a khala and committed rape upon her. Narbada bleeded and went to her uncle Tarachand (Tavu) and narrated the incident to him. Tarachand brought her to Mst. Hangami, her mother. Narbada told her that the accused and committed sexual inter-course with her. The father of the girl Dalu was not present at that time at their house. When he returned, he was told the entire story by both Hangami and Narbada. Hangami showed the condition of the girl to Harlal, Jairam and Bhanwarlal and apprised them of the incident of rape. On February 24, 1982 Dalu Ram lodged the first information report of the occurrence at the Police Station, Bhensordgarh, on which a case under Section 376 IPC was registered against the accused. The injuries of Narbada were examined by Dr. Raj Kishore Tiwari, Medical Officer, Incharge Primary Health Centre on February 26, 1982. The doctor found four injuries on the body of Narbada including the rupture of her hymen. As per his opinion rape was committed with the girl about 8-10 days prior to the date of her medical examination. Her clothes were seized and sent for chemical examination and blood and semen was found on the same. After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the accused in the court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Begun who committed him to the court of Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh, for trial. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused for the offence under Section 376 IPC and recorded his plea. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under Section 376 IPC to four years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo two months' further rigorous imprisonment. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the age of Narbada on the date of the occurrence was 11 yrs. i.e. much below 16 years. There was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Narbada which was corborrated by the evidence of Tara Chand, Mst. Hangami, Harlal and Bhanwarlal. The fact that rape was committed on Narbada was also proved by the evidence of Dr. Raj Kishore Tiwari and the presence of blood and semen on her cloths strengthened the same. The learned Sessions Judge held that it was the accused who committed rape on Narbada.
4. This being an unrepresented appeal sent through the jail an Amicus Curiae was assigned to the accused and Mr. B. Advani, Advocate has appeared as Amicus Curiae and argued the case on his behalf. After going through the relevant record of the case and perusing the statement of the girl and the other prosecution witnesses I concur with the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that Narbada was aged 11 years, rape was committed upon her and it was the accused who committed the rape upon Narbada. The evidence of Dr. Raj Kishore Tiwari, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre is sufficient to prove that the age of Narbada was 11 years on the date of incident and that rape was committed upon her. Her hymen was ruptured and blood and semen were found on her clothes on chemical examination. Thus there cannot be any doubt that Narbada was made a victim of rape when she was only 11 years of age. Her testimony duly corroborated by her uncle (Tavu) Tara Chand and her mother Smt. Hangami to whom she narrated the story of rape immediately after the occurrence established the fact that it was the accused who committed this crime with her. The evidence of Harlal and Bhanwar Lal further supported the prosecution version. The mere fact that Narbada was a child witness is not sufficient to discard her testimony. The learned Sessions Judge has said that she gave intelligible answers and understood the sanctity of oath. As regards delay in lodging the first information report the learned Sessions Judge has accepted the explanation furnished by Dalu and I do not ,find any mistake in the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge. The case under Section 376 IPC for committing the rape upon Narbada a girl of 11 years has been fully made out against the accused and his conviction for the said offence is upheld.
5. As regards the question of sentence I do not feel that there are any circumstances for taking a lenient view. The sentence of four years cannot be said to be excessive.
6. The result is that the appeal is dismissed.