JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Hanuman has been convicted for the affence under Section 377, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment by the Sessions Judge, Jalore by his Judgment dated May 21, 1980. 2. The charge against the appellant is that on the evening of 14.3.80 he committed rape on Moolki aged about 7 years at the field of her father situated in village Chana. A typed report of the occurrence was lodged on March 17, 1980 before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jalore at 10.45 a.m., which was forwarded to the Police Station Nosra and at the Police Station Nosra, it was received at 2 p.m. on that very day and a case under section 376, I.P.C. was registered. The prosecutrix was medically examined on 17.3.80 by Dr. Anil Vyas P.W.4. The prosecutrix was subsequently taken to Jalore Hospital. There also she was admitted and Dr. R.P. Purohit P.W.5. examined her. The accused was arrested and was also sent for medical examinations. Other usual investigation was also conducted and thereafter a charge sheet was presented against the accused and the accused was tried by the learned Session Judge. At the trial, the prosecution examined P.W.l Moolki, P.W.2 Hariya, P.W,3 Joga, P.W.4 Dr. Anil Vyas, P.W.5 Dr. R.P. Purohit, P.W.6 Rewa and P.W.7 Sujanaram, the Investigating Officer, after recording the statement of the accused, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and Sentenced the accused as aforesaid. 3. I have heard Shri Doongarsingh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Moolchand Bhati, learnea Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case. 4. Mr. Doongarsingh, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out several infirmities in the prosecution case and on the basis of these infirmities, he submitted that the case against the appellant becomes highly doubtful. He pointed out that the occurrence was not reported till 17.3.80, The report was delayed by three days and in the typed report the name of the accused, which was typed was struck off and in that place by hand, the name of the appellant was introduced. That makes the case of the prosecution highly doubtful. He pointed out that the occurrence was not reported till 17.3.80, The report was delayed by three days and in the typed report the name of the accused, which was typed was struck off and in that place by hand, the name of the appellant was introduced. That makes the case of the prosecution highly doubtful. He further pointed out that the identity of the appellant is not established from the statements of Moolki and Hariya and if their statements are found to be credible with regard to the identity, the evidence of Joga and the other corroborative evidence can not be relied upon by the prosecution. He also submitted that if the prosecution case is considered in the light of the statement of Hariya, then the whole prosecution ease falls. Hariya has said that there was a khoonta at the place of occurrence and Moolki fell on that and that Khoonta was also stained with blood and the statement of Hariya gets corroboration from the statement of Moolki also, when she states that the fell on the Khoonta. He also pointed out the discrepancy in the medical evidence. The opinion of Dr. Vyas stands contradicted by the opinion of Dr, R.P. Purohit. According to Dr. Purohit. it was only an attempt to rape, with regard to the actual performance of the act, his opinion is that nothing can be specified. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by Mr. Doongar Singh and the infirmities pointed out by him. How for the infirmities affect the present case is a question to be examined. It may be stated that the evidences cannot be considered in a dissected manner. In order to lead to any conclusion, the entire evidence has to be looked as a whole and it is to be seen as to whether the ease as submitted by the prosecution through various witnesses, inspires confidence or not and on the basis of that, can it be reasonably concluded that the appellant stands connected with the commission of the offence. I have been taken through the statement of Moolki, Hariya and Joga. The most material statement is of Moolki herself. Her statement regarding identity of the accused is clear and categorical. Two infirmities have been pointed out in her statement (1) that the name of the accused was given out to her by her father. I have been taken through the statement of Moolki, Hariya and Joga. The most material statement is of Moolki herself. Her statement regarding identity of the accused is clear and categorical. Two infirmities have been pointed out in her statement (1) that the name of the accused was given out to her by her father. It may be that Moolki may not be knowing the name of the accused but she clearly pointed out the accused to be the person, who committed rape on her, In a court question she answered that the time, when the accused caught hold of her. she did not know his name but she has described the accused to be 'begari'. Another infirmity, which has been pointed out in her statement was with regard to the part of the body, where rape was committed. In the court question the matter has been clarified and nothing would turn on what she has stated in the cross-examination that it was anus. Her statement is clear that her private part started bleeding. Under the circumstance, the infirmity is in consequential more particularly when in the question put by the court, she clarified the same. The statement of Moolki in my opinion alone is sufficient corroborated by medical evidence, to hold the appellant guilty of the offence under section 376, I.P.C. Besides the statement of Mooki, I find that her statement gets corroboration from the statement of Hariya as well as Joga. Hariya is the brother of Moolki, who was present at the time of occurrence at the field though he went away to scare away moriyas at the instance of the accused and he left the place of occurrence for sometime and when he returned, he found the accused committing rape on his sister. Some infirmities have been pointed out in his statement as well. Those infirmities would have assumed significance, had the statement been of an adult person. Hariya appears to be a boy of weak intellect and it is on that account that without comprehending the question, in cross-examination, he answered the same. Questions have been put to him with regard to the identity of the appellant and also with regard to the presence of 'Khoonta' and blood stains on it. Hariya appears to be a boy of weak intellect and it is on that account that without comprehending the question, in cross-examination, he answered the same. Questions have been put to him with regard to the identity of the appellant and also with regard to the presence of 'Khoonta' and blood stains on it. He admits in the cross examination that he enquired about the name of the appellant from his father and the father disclosed his name to be Hanuman and he also stated that when police was searching the accused on the date of his statement then also his name was given out by his father. One more infirmity has been pointed out in the statement that according to him, he reported the matter to his father and when his father came to the field, his father saw the accused. This version has not been supported by his father. Joga and according to Joga, he alone went to the field. It may be mentioned that presence of Hariya at the spot can not be doubted. His presence is established from the statements of Moolki and Joga as it was Hariya, who reported the matter to Joga and it is on his report that Joga appeared at the scence of occurrence. When presence of this witness is establish the infirmities pointed out by Shri Doongar Singh in his statement lose there significance. The accused cannot be given any benefit on account of the statement of Hariya in view of the fact that it cannot be expected of him being of weak intellect to stand the cross examination in a manner in which an intelligent man can face. In my opinion, the statement of Hariya contained truth and in any case, if read with the statement, of Joga and Moolki it cannot be doubted that it was the accused and the accused alone, who was responsible for the criminal assault on the person of Moolki. 6. It is true that the report in this case is a delayed one but according to Joga he sent his brother to report the matter to the police. When his brother did not return for three days, he himself went to the police station alongwith Moolki and he found that his brother was there. 6. It is true that the report in this case is a delayed one but according to Joga he sent his brother to report the matter to the police. When his brother did not return for three days, he himself went to the police station alongwith Moolki and he found that his brother was there. The delayed report in the circumstance of this case is of no significance because what I find is that the circumstance of this case do not create doubt. As regards the erasure of the name of the accused in the F.I.R. it may be pointed out that it could have only be explained by the informant Bhalaram. Bhalaram has expired and as per the statement of Surjaram, the report was submitted in the present form. Had Bhalaram been alive perhaps, he would have explained under what circumstances the typed name of the accused was struck of and the name of Hanuman was written and by whom. This erasure of the name in the record cannot be viewed so seriously in the face of other credible evidence available on record. 7. So far as the discrepancy in the medical evidence is concerned, it may be stated that no importance can be given to the opinion of Dr. R.P. Purohit in view of the fact that Moolki was first examined by Dr. Anil Vyas and he found injuries on the private part of Moolki, which clearly establish that it is a case of rape and not simply a case of attempt of rape. I find it to be a clear case of rape. A clear opinion has also not been expressed by Dr. Vyas but looking to the nature of injures, I have no doubt in my mind that it was a case of rape. Thus, the evidence if considered as a whole, and the total conspectus of the case in my opinion proves beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who committed rape on Mst. Moolki. On merits, I do not find any force in this appeal and in my opinion the appellant has been rightly convicted under section 376, I.P.C. 8. Coming to the question of sentence the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sentence awarded is too harsh looking to the age of the appellant. Moolki. On merits, I do not find any force in this appeal and in my opinion the appellant has been rightly convicted under section 376, I.P.C. 8. Coming to the question of sentence the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sentence awarded is too harsh looking to the age of the appellant. In my opinion, the ends of justice would be served in case the appellant is awarded sentence of three years. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant is maintained. However, his sentence is reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment.Appeal partly allowed. *******