P. K. Bahri, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant-Balbir Singh has been convicted of offences punishable under Section 366 and 376 of the Indianpenal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000 and in defaultof payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for oneyear on the first count and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default of payment of fine toundergo simple imprisonment for one year on the second countvide judgment and order dated 7/08/1992, by an Additionalsessions Judge, Delhi. He has come in appeal challenging hisconviction and sentences. ( 2 ) FACTS of the case, in brief, are that Public Witness 4 Mehar Singh withhis wife Public Witness 5 Sarupi were at the relevant time living in Railwaycolony, Vasant Road, Public Witness 3 young girl then aged about 3 years,who is the grand-daughter of Public Witness 4 Mehar Singh, was living withthem. Appellant was living in the neighbourhood in Quarter No. 195/c-1, Railway Colony, Basant Road. It is the case of theprosecution that on 12/06/1983, at about 12. 30 PM or sowhile Public Witness 3 was playing outside the house, appellant accostedher and on the pretext of returning an ironing press belongingto her grandfather he induced her to accompany him to hisquarter on the first floor and there he committed rape on her. The girl after being subjected to this cruel assault at the hands ofthe appellant came weeping to her house and narrated the occurrenceto her grandmother. The grandfather of the girl also havingreturned learnt about to the occurrance but in order not togive any publicity involving the honour of their young granddaughter,the grand-parents thought it fit not to precipitate thematter although Sarupi has deposed that she had reprimandedand rebuked the appellant on the day of occurrence who hadbeen earlier proclaiming to be her Dharambhai. ( 3 ) IT appears that due to injuries caused to her vagina thegirl developed septicaemia requiring treatment and she wastaken to Kalavati Saran Child Hospital on 8/07/1983 and shewas examined by Dr. Sharda Jain Public Witness 11 who prescribedcertain medicines as per prescription slip Ex. Public Witness II A. It is recorded in the prescription that the child had been assaulted. Mehar Singh then thought of taking up the matter in the brotherhoodas the appellant and Mehar Singh belong to same brotherhood. Sharda Jain Public Witness 11 who prescribedcertain medicines as per prescription slip Ex. Public Witness II A. It is recorded in the prescription that the child had been assaulted. Mehar Singh then thought of taking up the matter in the brotherhoodas the appellant and Mehar Singh belong to same brotherhood. Admittedly the appellant was resident of Villagedhani Mir Dad, District Hissar. Mehar Singh is stated to havetaken her little child to the respectable persons of brotherhoodin that Village who then met as a Panchayat and after hearingthe narration of facts from Mehar Singh and the little girland also giving chance to explain the position to appellant sfather Mangat Ram, they came to the conclusion that appellant had committed rape and proposed a punishment of blackeningthe appellant s face and then for taking him around in the villagewhich punishment was not acceptable to appellant s father. Thus. they prepared document Ex. Public Witness 7/b in this connection on 12/07/1983 and as the punishment was not agreed uponby the appellant, they prepared letter Ex. Public Witness 7/a addressedto the Gram Panchayat of Gamothi, District Rohtak, to whichvillage Mehar Singh belonged, recommending that the suitableaction may be taken against the appellant in accordance withlaw. Public Witness 7 Phoola Ram, Public Witness 8 Parbhati and Public Witness 1o Parkash arethe witnesses of the said village who were examined to provethese facts. Mehar Singh then decided to take up the matter withthe police and on A 6/08/1983, he made his statement Ex. PW4/a before SI Ramesh Chand Garg Public Witness 15 and FIR, copy ofwhich is Ex. Public Witness 121b, was registered. Public Witness 3 little girl was sent formedical examination and she was first taken to Dr. D. D. Khetarpal, Public Witness 2, who referred her to LNJPN Hospital as therewas no lady doctor present in the Police Hospital at that timeand he prepared his report Ex. Public Witness 2/b and thereafter the girlwas medically examined by a lady doctor on that very day as permedico legal report Ex. Public Witness 6/a. The record clerk of the saidhospital Shri K. K. Chhibber Public Witness 6 proved the report to be inhandwriting and signed by Dr. Behl. Dr. Behl was not examinedas her present address could not be found out. Document Ex. Public Witness 6/a. The record clerk of the saidhospital Shri K. K. Chhibber Public Witness 6 proved the report to be inhandwriting and signed by Dr. Behl. Dr. Behl was not examinedas her present address could not be found out. Document Ex. PW6/a shows that the patient, who is said to be victim of havingbeen subjected to rape by Balbir Singh, was having history ofmucus discharge from her private parts for the last one monthor so and she also found that pus discharged was present fromurethra and hymen stood torn and no fresh bleeding was presentbut vaginal introitus was found inflamed. Slide was also madeof pus discharge coming from introitus. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge has brought homethe offences to the appellant in placing implicit reliance on thetestimony of the little girl corroborated by testimony of the grandparents and supported to some extent by the medical report. ( 5 ) IT has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the charges against the appellant were not at all stood establish-ed in any manner inasmuch as there has been unexplained andundue delay made by the grand-parents of the little girl in re-porting the matter to the police and they themselves have beeninstrumental in destruction of the material evidence like bloodi stained underwear of,the little girl by washing it out and not prdoucingthe same. before the police. It is also urged that the statementof Mehar Singh, grandfather, was full of contradictions ashe wanted the court to believe that in order not to give anypublicity to the plight of his little girl and to save her honour hehad not thought fit of raising the issue with the police yet hethought it fit to go to the brotherhood of the appellant in thevillage and publicise this occurience at that place instead ofreporting the matter to the police at Delhi so that the membersof the brotherhood may not come to know about the shame oflittle girl. It is also urged that Pratap, father of the girl, was citeda as a witness and was preseat in court on one of the hearings stillthe prosecution had tor reasons unknown not examined him as awitness. It is also urged that Pratap, father of the girl, was citeda as a witness and was preseat in court on one of the hearings stillthe prosecution had tor reasons unknown not examined him as awitness. It is also urged that Public Witness 3 being a child witness could havebeen easily tutored to falsely implicate the appellant and thus,her testimony could not have been made the basis of bringing homethe offences to the appellant as her testimony was not corroboratedby any independent evidence. It is also urged that at any rate thesentences imposed on the appellant were disproportionate to thealleged crime committed by him and appellant being a youngperson should not have been dealt with so severely. It is also urgedthat the witnesses, who have been examined from the village ofthe appellant, were inimically inclined fowards the family of theappellant and thus, no reliance could have been placed on theirstatements and virtually they are the persons, who had got falselyimplicated the appellant in this case. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the Statethat there was no enmity in between the appellant and Meharsingh and his family and there were cordial relations between themtill this occurrence took place and there is no reason whatsoeverfor Mehar Singh and his wife to toe the line of any enemy ofb appellant for bringing this heinous charge against theappellant which involves the honour of their little grand-daughter. It is urged that delay which has occurred in lodging the FIR inthe present case has been explained as Mehar Singh who originallybelongs to a village and his son Pratap did not want to givepublicity to the occurrence which would have brought more traumaand shame to the family and they wanted the matter not to beraked up but as the girl developed septic in her private parts inthe injuries caused to her on account of this rape, they took upthe courage at first to get punished the appellant at the handsof his brotherhood and not succeeding in that object they wereleft with no other alternative but to lodge the case with the police. ( 7 ) WHILE speaking on a testimony of child witness in the caseof Arbind Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 1994 SCC (Cri) 1418, it washeld that it is well settled that a child witness is prone to tutoring. ( 7 ) WHILE speaking on a testimony of child witness in the caseof Arbind Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 1994 SCC (Cri) 1418, it washeld that it is well settled that a child witness is prone to tutoring. Hence the court should look for corroboration particularly whenthe evidence betrays traces of tutoring. In Satish Kumar Vs. Stateof Punjab, 1994 SCC (Cri) 180, the apex court has held thatcourt should look to all the surrounding circumstances in orderto decide whether the testimony given by a child witness is as aresult of tutoring. ( 8 ) IN the present case, before even approaching the respectablemembers of the brotherhood of the appellant in the village situatedin Hissar District (Haryana) this girl has been. taken for medicaltreatment to Kalavati Saran Child Hospital and it was found bythe doctor who examined her that history had beea given thatshe had been assaulted and medical treatment was prescribed anda drug ampicillin for controlling the infection has been given. Mere fact that the words rape or sexual assault are not recordedin the prescription slip is of no consequence. The word assault and nature of drug prescribed, in our view, give corroboration tothe prosecution case. ( 9 ) EVEN the girl was examined after lodging of the FIR. Herhymen was found torn and the pus was also found coming fromher private parts. So, these material pieces of evidence which couldnot be fabricated by the prosecution do indicate that this little girlwas having problem in her private parts which fact gives corroborationto the statements of the prosecution witnesses that she musthave suffered injuries to her private parts on account of an assault. The doctor had, while referring the history before the case wasregistered, mentioned that child has been subjected to assault. Itis true that nature of the assault has not been mentioned in thatprescription slip prepared by the doctor. In the present case, thetestimony of the little girl in court has been quite straight forwardand she has unequivocally deposed that it was the appellant wholured her to his own room and then subjected her to rape and shebled from her private parts. It must be mentioned that there isnot even a suggestion given to little girl or Mehar Singh or Smt. Sarupi in cross-examination that they had ill-will or inimicalrelation with the appellant earlier so that they could be motivatedto bring such heinous charges against the appellant. It must be mentioned that there isnot even a suggestion given to little girl or Mehar Singh or Smt. Sarupi in cross-examination that they had ill-will or inimicalrelation with the appellant earlier so that they could be motivatedto bring such heinous charges against the appellant. Sarupi hasclearly mentioned that this appellant always held himself out asher Dharambhai which indicates that there were quite amiablerelations between appellant and Mehar Singh and Mehar Singh sfamily. If that is so. we find no earthlvy reason as to why Meharsingh. Sarupi and the little girl would have brought about thisserious charge against the appellant which involved the honourof their little grand daughter if the charge was not true. ( 10 ) IN the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raghubirsingh. JT 1993 (2) SC 152. the Supreme Court has laid downthat there is no legal compulsion to look for corroboration of theevidence of the prosecutrix before recording order of convictionand a conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the -prosecutrix if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absenceof circmustances which militate against her veracity. ( 11 ) MERE fact that the underwear of the prosecutrix was notpreserved by the grand-parents of the girl in our view is notsufficant to doubt the veracity of the statement of the. little girlas well as-her grand-parents that this heinous crime has beencommitted by the appellant. The grand-parents of the child andalso her father had initially decided-not to take any action againstthe appellant for this occurrence, that is why they did not intheir wisdom think it fit to preserve that blood Stained underwear. It is possible that if the girl had not developed any serious infectionin her injury to her private parts, the matter may not have seenthe light of the day. Unfortunately for the appellant the girl developed infection in the injury inflicted on her private parts as aresult of inhumane rape committed by the appellant on her personand that provoked the grand-parents of the girl to rake up thematter and see that the appellant is awarded some punishment byhis brotherhood and failing in their efforts in that direction theylodged the matter with the police. So, this delay which has occurredin lodging the FIR, in our view, is quite explainable. So, this delay which has occurredin lodging the FIR, in our view, is quite explainable. This delay,in our view is not sufficient to doubt the veracity of the statementsof the grand-parents as well as of the girl in support of the charge. In cross-examination of Public Witness 3 it was suggested that the girl hadfallen while climbing down the stairs of the room of the appellantand that has brought about bleeding injury to her private partwhich suggestion was categorically denied by Public Witness 3. If injury hadoccurred in this manner there could be no reason for Public Witness 3 to havedeposed against the appellant that he had subjected her to rape. As already noticed, there was no inimical relation which couldhave prompted grand-parents of the girl to tutor the child to bringthese allegations against the appellant. ( 12 ) PUBLIC Witness 7 Phoola Ram has proved documents Exs. Public Witness 7/a, andpw7/b and had deposed that Mehar Singh alongwith his grand-daughter had come to the village and complained about the conduct of the appellant in raping his grand-daughter and the membersof the brotherhood had met in a Panchayat where even appellant sfather was present and the girl had narrated the occurrence whichthey believed. In cross-examination of this witness it was tried toshow that appellant s father was having had relations with Prabhati,zile and Harias and thus, they had joined hands with Mehar Singhin support of this case. It is true that Harjas had been convictedin some criminal case at the instance of appellant s father and hehad also lodged a criminal complaint against appellant s fatherregarding theft of bullocks. But the Question which arises forconsideration is whether any such Panchayat was brought aboutor not. It is evident that any decision taken by the Panchayat isnot at all relevant for deciding the guilt of the appellant. Thestory of Panchayat has been relied upon by the prosecution inorder to explain the delay which has occurred in lodging the FIRby Mehar Singh. In cross-examination of Phoola Ram it was notsuggested that no such complaint had been made by Mehar Singhto the brotherhood of the appellant in that village. The onlysuggestion given was that they had joined hands alongwith Harjasin order to take revenge from the appellant s father. parbhati Public Witness 8also referred to the same facts and it was suggested in the crossexamination that Savitri, sister of. The onlysuggestion given was that they had joined hands alongwith Harjasin order to take revenge from the appellant s father. parbhati Public Witness 8also referred to the same facts and it was suggested in the crossexamination that Savitri, sister of. Ziley Singh had been a tenantof Mehar Singh for some period prior to the present occurrence. This fact is, indeed, not disputed by Mehar Singh that Savitri hadbeen his tenant for 3-4 months prior to the occurrence. Althoughmehar Singh denied that Ziiey Singh and Harjas had ever visitedhis house or he ever knew them prior to the holding of the saidpanchayat. To this witness a suggestion was given that in fact nosuch meeting of Panchayat took place and the so-called Panchayathad tried to falsely implicate the appellant on account of enmitywhich suggestion was denied by the witness. Parkash Public Witness 1o hasalso given a statement in the same manner. ( 13 ) IN defence, the appellant has examined DWI-Ram Singh,dw2-Sadal Singh, DW3-Abey Ram and DW4-Dharampal whodeposed that no such Panchayat ever took place and in case anysuch Panchayat had been arranged they would have also participated in such Panchayat. These witnesses were referring to a regularpanchayat which is elected and meets now an. d then for performingits functions while the prosecution was referring to a Panchayatof the brotherhood of the appellant and not the meeting of anyofficial Panchayat of the Village. So, these statements of DWIto DW3 that no regular Panchayat has taken place do not go torebut the case of the prosecution that no Panchayat of the brotherhood,as alleged by the prosecution, took place. ( 14 ) DW4-DHARAMPAL was one of the persons who allegedlyalso attended the Panchayat of the brotherhood but he lias onlyagain deposed that no Panchayat had ever met and he gave outthe names of members of the Panchayat presumably he was referringto the meeting of a regular Panchayat. In fact, he has notdeposed that no Panchayat of the brotherhood had taken place. ( 15 ) THE significance of the Panchayat is only to give supportto the case of the prosecution that Mehar Singh had brought aboutthe charges against the appellant in July 1983 itself and documentswere executed by the persons who met in that Panchayat on 12/07/1983, to explain the delay which occurred in bringing aboutthe police case against the appellant. ( 15 ) THE significance of the Panchayat is only to give supportto the case of the prosecution that Mehar Singh had brought aboutthe charges against the appellant in July 1983 itself and documentswere executed by the persons who met in that Panchayat on 12/07/1983, to explain the delay which occurred in bringing aboutthe police case against the appellant. In our view, the findingsgiven by the Panchayat are not at all relevant and are of noconsequence. In the present case, we find that reasonable explanationis given for the delay which has occurred in lodging thefir. We agree with the findings arrived at by the Additionalsessions Judge that there was no reason for Mehar Singh and hiswife and their grand-daughter to bring any false charges againstthe appellant involving the honour of their family. Non-examinationof Pratap, girl s father, as witness is of no significance becausehe was informed about the occurrrenceonly after a aew days whenhe visited his parents. We find the testim0lly of the girl quite trustworthyand we place implicit credence in her testimny whichstands duly corroborated from the statements of her grand-parentsand some corroboration is available in the medical report of thegirl, as referred above. The age of the prosecution is, indeed, notin challenge as it stood established from the school record provedby Public Witness 1 Smt. Usha Bhatia and the radiological assessment of herage carried out by Public Witness 14 Dr. B. Bhattacharya as per X-ray platesexs. Public Witness 14/a and B and report Ex. Public Witness 14/c. ( 16 ) THIS offence was committed by the appellant prior toindian Penal Code being amended. Section 376 (2) (f) wasbrough on the statute book afterwards and thus, would not beapplicable to the case in hand. However, the maximum life imprisoncientcould be imposed even under Section 376 of theunamendindian Penal Code. In the present case, we, however,find that sentence of life lfeprisonment imposed on the appellantis harsh. The interests of justice would be well met by imposingsentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment in place of imprisonmentfor life. With this modification in the sentence, we maintainthe conviction and the sentences of the appellant and dismiss theappeal.