JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, convicting the accused-appellant Mahaveer Singh under section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further one years rigorous imprisonment. 2. The allegation against the appellant is that he met the prosecutrix Smt. Narbada aged 7 years, when she was returning from her school while going to her house, and took her in a lonely place and committed sexual intercourse, as a result of which, she started bleeding. A report with regard to this incident was lodged at Police Station, Sikar, on the basis of which, the police registered a case under section 376 IPC. 3. After the investigation, the police submitted challan before the learned Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the court of Sessions. Learned Aadl. Sessions Judge, after trial convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has very vehemently argued that conviction of the appellant can not be maintained as the learned trial court has placed reliance on the testimony of a child witness PW 8 Mst. Narbada who was only seven years old and to whom oath was not administered. He was further submitted that Dr Sushila Mathur who had examined the prosecutrix has not been examined and the learned trial court has placed reliance on the evidence of PW 6 Dr. M.M. Mishra. First Information Report in the case was lodged at the police station after great delay which has not been explained by the prosecution, and that accused has been falsely implicated in such a henious offence. Otherwise also, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. He has further submitted that even if the charge is held to be proved, the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant is excessive and can not be maintained. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt, the accused has committed a heinous offence and that this court should not interfere with the sentence awarded by the trial court. 6. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt, the accused has committed a heinous offence and that this court should not interfere with the sentence awarded by the trial court. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the whole matter and have also gone through the judgment of the trial court as well as the record of the case. 7. On merits, we are convinced that the learned trial court was right in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under section 376 IPC against the accused-appellant. We do not find any infirmity in the statement of PW 8 Mst. Narbada, the prosecutrix. She has given a very natural evidence and her statement cannot be discarded merely because she is a child witness. Dr. Sushila Mathur was not a necessary witness. She was not present when Dr. Narbada was examined by Dr M.M. Misra who has been examined as PW 6. So his statement is sufficient. Delay in lodging the FIR in such matter is not fatal and has been explained by the prosecution. The trial Court has discussed the entire prosecution evidence in great detail and since we are in complete agreement with the same, we do not propose to burden this judgment and we confirm the order of conviction passed by the trial court against the appellant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant cited many authorities with regard to the sentence. We shall like to deal with them. 9. He has submitted that the maximum sentence provided under section 376 IPC was life imprisonment and even then, generally sentence awarded was from 5 years to 7 years and never beyond 7 years. It was only after amendment in 1983 that a minimum sentence of ten years has been provided in certain circumstances. He has brought to our notice Jai Singh v. State, 1973 Cr. LJ 1466 wherein Allahabad High Court while maintaining conviction under section 376 IPC to an elderly person of 55 years for attempting to commit rape on a child of 7 or 8 years, awarded five years RI. 10. He has brought to our notice Jai Singh v. State, 1973 Cr. LJ 1466 wherein Allahabad High Court while maintaining conviction under section 376 IPC to an elderly person of 55 years for attempting to commit rape on a child of 7 or 8 years, awarded five years RI. 10. In R.K. Agrawal v. The State of Orissa, AIR 1976 SC 1774 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court maintained conviction under section 376 IPC and confirmed the sentence awarded i.e. 6 month RI and a fine of Rs. 500/- to an accused aged 65 years alleged to have committed rape on a girl of six years. 11. In Sanwalia v. The State of Rajasthan, 1977 RCC 78 this court confirmed the conviction under section 376 IPC and sentenced the accused to 4 years RI and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in which case the prosecutrix was of 7 years. 12. In State of Rajasthan v. Saviya, 1983 RLW 364 a division bench of this court while accepting the appeal of the State of Rajasthan, reversed the judgment of the trial court (Sessions Judge, Pali), and confirmed the order of conviction passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sirohi, sentencing the accused under section 376 IPC for 4 years RI and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in a case where the accused was alleged to have committed rape on 11 years old girl. Though in that case, their Lordships observed that the sentence was inadequate but since no notice of enhancement was given and the offence was of the year 1971, they did not think it proper to issue a notice for enhancement of sentence at that stage. They further observed that cases of rape on minor girls and that too, of weaker section of the Society, should be dealt with seriously, and once the offence is proved, normal sentence should be of 7 to 10 years RI. 13. Reference in this connection has also been made to Man Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1983 RLW 580 wherein also another Division Bench of this court maintained the conviction under section 376 IPC for committing rape by a boy of 18 years upon a girl of 7 to 8 years and maintained the sentence of five years RI. 13. Reference in this connection has also been made to Man Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1983 RLW 580 wherein also another Division Bench of this court maintained the conviction under section 376 IPC for committing rape by a boy of 18 years upon a girl of 7 to 8 years and maintained the sentence of five years RI. Inspite of the fact that notice to show cause why sentence should not be enhanced had been given to the accused at the time of the admission of the appeal, keeping in mind the fact that the offence was committed in January, 1980 and at the time of the commission of offence, the accused was of 18 years age, sentence of 5 years cannot be termed as grossly inadequate. 14. Our attention has also been drawn to Prabhu Dayal v. State of Rajasthan, 1986 RLR 671 wherein learned Single Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence passed against the accused under section 376 IPC but observed that the accused deserved minimum sentence of ten years RI, but since the State Governments appeal was not filed for enhancement and the sentence was recorded in 1977, the Court did not resort to remedy of revision for enhancement of sentence, though that was a case of a police constable who committed rape on an innocent lady inside the police out-post. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a recent decision of this court in Chhotu Lal v. The State of Rajasthan, 1987 Cr.LR (Raj) 91 wherein another Division Bench of this court while confirming the conviction under section 376 IPC for committing rape on a girl of 7 years, reduced the sentence of life imprisonment to seven years RI, relying on Baldev v. State, 1977 Cr. LR (Raj.) 31 , keeping in mind that the incident had happened before amendment of Section 376 IPC in 1983. 16. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant also brought to our notice Man Mohan v. State of Rajasthan, 1979 Cr. LR (Raj) 153 with regard to the facts and circumstances of the case which the court should keep in mind while passing order of sentence against the accused person. 17. We have given our thoughtful consideration to all these authorities cited before us. 18. LR (Raj) 153 with regard to the facts and circumstances of the case which the court should keep in mind while passing order of sentence against the accused person. 17. We have given our thoughtful consideration to all these authorities cited before us. 18. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar after recording conviction under section 376 IPC, gave an opportunity to the accused appellant as enjoined under section 235(2) Cr. PC on the question of sentence and has given the detailed reasons running into more than two pages and also referred cases of Sanvaliya and Bhan Singh (supra). 18. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar after recording conviction under section 376 IPC, gave an opportunity to the accused appellant as enjoined under section 235(2) Cr. PC on the question of sentence and has given the detailed reasons running into more than two pages and also referred cases of Sanvaliya and Bhan Singh (supra). A few excerpts may be quoted here under:- " bl eqdnesa esa ftu cPph ucZnk ds lkFk cykRdkj gqvk mldh vk;q 6&7 lky ds djhc gSA ,slh mez dh cPph dks ns[kdj fdlh Hkh O;fDr ds fnekx esa cykRdkj ;k lsDl dh Hkkouk vkos ;g ikf'od gks ldrk gS ekuoh; ugha] ijUrq fQj Hkh vfHk;qDr egkohj flag ds fnekx esa ,slh ckr vkbZ vkSj mlus voks/k ucZnk ds lkFk cykRdkj fd;kA nwljh ckr ;g gS fd tks gqvk exj cykRdkj Hkh ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa gqvk tcfd dqekjh ucZnk Ldwy ls vius ?kj [kkuk [kkus vk jgh FkhA Ldwy cPpksa ds fy, efUnj ls Hkh vf/kd ifo= gksrk gSa ,oa Ldwy ls vkrs le; jkLrs esa vfHk;qDr }kjk vcks/k ucZnk ds lkFk bl izdkj dk vekuoh; d`R; djuk fdlh Hkh rjg ls vfHk;qDr dks ltk esa fj;k;r iznku ugha djrkA vfHk;qDr egkohj flag }kjk 6&7 lky dh vcks/k ckfydk ucZnk ds lkFk tks cykRdkj fd;k og ?k`.kkLin rks gS gh] ijUrq blds lkFk&lkFk gh Hkkjrh; laLd`fr esa ukjh dk LFkku cgqr egRo dk gSa ,oa 'kkL=ksa esa L=h dks lnSo mWapk LFkku fn;k x;k gSa] ,d vkn'kZ ekrk] vknZ'k ohjkaxuk] vkn'kZ ifRu ,oa vkn'kZ cPps fuekZ.k djus dh vko';drk dh egrk gekjs /keZxzUFkksa esa nh xbZ gS og iwjs lalkj ds bfrgkl esa loZFkk foy{k.k gSaA gekjh xkSjoe;h laLd`fr esa ukjh ds pfj= dks lokZf/kd egRo fn;k x;k gSa] blfy, ukjh ds lkFk mldh ifo=rk Hkax djus dk iz;kl djus ij ukjh fdlh dh gR;k rd dj ldrh gSaA gekjs lekt ,oa fo'ks"kdj xkaoksa esa tgkWa ij fd yM+dh 'kknh gksuk Hkh lk/kkj.kr;k lEHko ugha gks ikrk ogkWa ij vxj ,slh vcks/k ckfydk ucZnk ds Hkfo"; ds ckjs esa lkspk tkos rks os fdlh Hkh lH; O;fDr dk fny ngy tkrk gSaA ckfydk ucZnk dk Hkfo"; va/kdkje; gksxk ;k mldk Hkfo"; dSlk gksxk] dqN Hkh ugha dgk tk ldrkA bu lc ckrksa dks vfHk;qDr dks nh tkus okyh ltk ds ifjis{; esa ns[kuk vko';d gSA vfHk;qDr egkohj flag] tks fd 25 o"kZ dk le>nkj uo;qod gS] mi;qZDr gkykr esa fdlh Hkh izdkj ls ltk esa mnkjrk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS ,oa vfHk;qDr dks ,sls vekuoh; d`R; ds fy, vf/kdrj ltk esjh jk; esa nh tkuh pkfg;s ftlls dh lekt esa bl rjg ds ?k`f.kr vijk/k ikfjr gksus ij jksd yxs ,oa dqekjh ucZnk tSlh ukckfyx de mez dh cPph;ksa dk HkkX; u"V gksus ls cpk;k tk ldsA " 19. Amendment in Section 376 IPC by the legislature also indicates that even the Parliament considers that such offences should be dealt with very severely, and therefore, they have amended section 376 IPC in very strict manner providing minimum sentence of ten years RI in certain cases. Therefore, since we are in agreement with the reasons assigned by the learned trial court, we do not think it proper to interfere with the judgment of the trial court, convicting and sentencing the appellant, for life imprisonment. 20. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant is confirmed.Appeal dismissed. *******