FAKHRUDDIN, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by Sessions Judge, Guna in Sessions Trial No. 189/86 convicting the appellant under Section 376/5. 11 Of i. P. c. and sentencing him to 5 years R. I. ( 2 ) THE prosecution alleges that on 27-9-1986, Ramvati, daughter of Mangilal was subjected to sexual intercourse. It is alleged that when she was washing her hair at the river, accused came there and asked her to look after his cattle and in the meantime, he will take bath. She refused whereupon he threw her in the river. While she started to drown, he caught of her by both of her legs and took her out and threw her on the sand. Thereafter, he took her carnal knowledge. She bled and became unconscious. Accused ran away. She came to her house. She went to the Police Station and lodged the report, which is Ex. P/1. She was sent for medical examination. The medical report is Ex. P/3. ( 3 ) AFTER usual investigation, the challan was filed. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and contended that heltas been falsely implicated. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses, namely, Ramvati, the prosecutrix (P. W. 1); Dr. S. R. Soni (P. W. 2), Keserbai (P. W. 3), Ganpat (P. W. 4), Sobatkhan (P. W. 5), Mangilal (P. W. 6), Laxminarayan (P. W. 7), Ramsanehi (P. W. 8), Kelashnarayan (P. W. 9), Shriniwas (P. W. 1o), Dr. (Smt.) Kanti Sharma (P. W. 11), and Dr. (Smt.) Suman Shrivastava (P. W. 12 ). ( 5 ) THE learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the age of the prosecutrix was of 8 years at the time of commission of offence. The said finding is recorded in para 7 of the judgment, and the same is not disputed. Even otherwise it is borne out from the evidence of Keserbai, the mother of the prosecutrix and Mangilal, the father of the prosecutrix. ( 6 ) P. W. 1 Ramwati has stated in her evidence that when she was washing her hair at the river, accused Amarsingh came there and asked her to look after his cattle and in the meantime, he will take bath. When she refused, he threw her in the river. ( 6 ) P. W. 1 Ramwati has stated in her evidence that when she was washing her hair at the river, accused Amarsingh came there and asked her to look after his cattle and in the meantime, he will take bath. When she refused, he threw her in the river. He then caught hold of her legs and took her out and threw her on the sand. Thereafter, he committed sexual-intercourse with her. She has been cross-examined at length. Her statement was corroborated by the evidence of her brother Ganpat (P. W. 4), who has stated that he had seen the condition of the prosecutrix. On inquiry, he was told that: Matter in other language. Then he had informed his father. He found that Ramwatis clothes had the blood-stains. He also found that the blood was coming out. The evidence of Keserbai (P. W. 3) is that Ramwati had narrated the incident and she had also seen the condition of Ramwati (P. W. 1 ). The evidence of Mangilal (P. W. 6) is also the effect that he was informed by Ganpat (P. W. 4) about the incident. He went to the house and seen the condition of her daughter. On inquiry, Ramwati (P. W. 1) told him that: Matter in other language. Laxminarain (P. W. 7) has been cross-examined. He has stated in his evidence that he had seen the condition of Ramwati (P. W. 1 ). She was weeping and the blood was coming out. In cross examination, he has admitted that: - Matter in other language. All the evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence vide Ex. P/li and 12. The finding, therefore, recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is well merited. I do not find any ground to interfere on the same count. ( 7 ) SHRI J. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecutrix has admitted that the report was read to her before she came to depose. In cross-examination she has admitted that: Matter in other language. She denied that no police person had read the statement. Then she was said that the Government pleader had read the statement and had said that: Matter in other language. As she was thrown, as she was done, she has given the statement. She has also stated that as the statement was read, she has given the statement. She denied that no police person had read the statement. Then she was said that the Government pleader had read the statement and had said that: Matter in other language. As she was thrown, as she was done, she has given the statement. She has also stated that as the statement was read, she has given the statement. ( 8 ) THE prosecutrix was of 8 years at the time, of commission of offence. She was of tender age. She does state that she has given the statement on her own. She has been questioned at length by Sessions Judge before her evidence was recorded. On scrutiny of her entire evidence, this Court finds nothing to discard her statement. Relying on Ramvilas and others v. State of M. P. , it was contended that the statement of prosecutrix should be discarded. This court is of the opinion that the evidence of P. W. 1 Ramwati is trustworthy. After the incident her condition was seen by her brother, mother, father and other witnesses who all have described the same and supported the prosecutrix. I have scrutinized her evidence and find reliable. ( 9 ) SHRI J. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant further placed reliance on Kakoo v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, and prayed for reduction of the sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that tile appellant has remained in jail for about 15 months. The incident is of 1986. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Kanhaiyalal v. State of M. P. , and contended that the period already undergone by the appellant and a fine will meet the ends of justice. ( 10 ) SHRI Arvind Dudawat, learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the State on the other hand, opposed the prayer for reduction of sentence and placed reliance on Madan Gopal Kakknd v. Naval Dubey, to support his contention. In the case, the conviction is recorded under Section 376/5 11 of I. P. C. and there is no State-appeal against acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 376 of I. P. C. ( 11 ) HAVING considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it will not be just and proper to send the appellant back to the jail custody. I accordingly sentence the appellant to suffer imprisonment for the period already undergone by him and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/ -. ( 12 ) IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction is maintained. The sentence is modified to the period already undergone by the appellant, and a fine of Rs. 15,000/- is imposed on the appellant. The fine shall be deposited within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order. ( 13 ) IF the fine amount is deposited, the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, i. e. the C. J. M. , Guna shall get the same deposited in any scheduled bank in the name of Ramwati (P. W. 1), daughter of Mangiya Mangilal, resident of village Siyari. P. S. Chachoda, District Guna. She was 8 years of age at that time when the offence was committed i. e. on 27. 9. 1986. She may be nearby 16 years of age today. The term deposit would be for five years accruing periodical interest. Ramwati PW -1 would be entitled to gel periodical interest. She will further be entitled to withdraw the amount on the expiry of 5 years as by that time she will be attaining the age of 21 years. These directions are issued so that the persons who are victims of such incident may rehabilitate themselves in society. If the appellant fails to deposit the amount within a period of two months from today he shall be taken into custody and shall undergo R. I. for 2 years in default of payment of fine. The copy of this Order shall be sent to Ramwati free of cost. Appeal allowed partly. .