MOHD. SHAMIM, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13/05/1992 passed by the learned Additionalsessions Judge. Delhi where through the convict (hereinafter referred to as the appellant for the sake of convenience) was found guiltyundersection 36313661376 of the Indian Penal Code and senteencedto various terms of imprisonment. He was sentenced to undergolife imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000. 00 under Section 376 ofthe Indian Penal Code. In case of his failute to clear the fine hewas directed to undergo R. I. for two years. He was further sentenced to undergo R. 1. for a term of 7 years with a fine of Rs. 1000. 00for an offence under Section ?66 of the Indian Penal Code. In caseof fine not being paid he was directed to undergo R. I. for a periodof one year under the said Section. He was then sentenced toundergo R. I. for two years under Section 363 of the Indian Penalcode All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution as set out in D. D. report No19-A (Ex. Public Witness -2/a), F. I. R. Ex. Public Witness -9/a and the report undersection 173 Criminal Procedure Code. is as under : that HC Omvir Singh (PW-13)was working as the duty constable on 10/01/1988 at R. M. L. Hospital for police station Mandir Marg. On the said date Mohdqasim (PW-4) came to- the hospital and got his daughter Km. Qaisar (PW-5) admitted in the aforesaid hospital. He thereupon apprisedthe police station of the said fact which resulted in the recording ofd. D. No. 19-A. A copy of the said D. D. report was handed overto Aandi Narain Singh (PW. 11) for the purposes of enquiry. He inconnection therewith immediately left for R. M. L. Hospital. Hecollected therefrom M. L. C. in respect of Km. Qaisar (hereinafterreferred to as the prosecutrix for the sake of brevity ). The doctordeclared the prosecutrix unfit for giving the statement. However,he also met father of the prosecutrix Mohd. Qasim (PW-4 ). He gothis statement recorded vide Ex. Public Witness -4/a. He sent the said statementto the police station for registration of a formal F. I. R. (Ex. PW-4/a) alongwith his endorsement (Ex. Public Witness -11/a) whereuponan F. I. R. was recorded vide Ex. Public Witness -4/a by the duty officer ASINarain Singh (PW-11 ). ( 3 ) MOHD. Qasim (PW-4 ). He gothis statement recorded vide Ex. Public Witness -4/a. He sent the said statementto the police station for registration of a formal F. I. R. (Ex. PW-4/a) alongwith his endorsement (Ex. Public Witness -11/a) whereuponan F. I. R. was recorded vide Ex. Public Witness -4/a by the duty officer ASINarain Singh (PW-11 ). ( 3 ) MOHD. Qasim ( Public Witness -4) stated in his statement Ex. Public Witness -4/athat he was a resident of A-2/11, Sarai Khalil, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. He has been residing at the abovesaid address alongwith his familymembers i. e. his wife and children. His daughter known as Km. Qaisar (PW-5) took one rupee from him to have some sweets at8. 00 p. m. and went to the market. She returned therefrom afternearabout one-and-a half or two hours. She was crying. On beingasked as to why she was screaming she informed him that while shewas playing outside some unknown person took her inside an uninhabitedand under semi-construction quarters at Sarai Khalil. Hebeat her and ravished her. She was bleeding at that time throughher vagina. He took her immediately to the Lady Hardinge Hospital for treatment. They, however, referred her to the R. M. L. Hospital where she had been admitted. He suspected that someone hadenticed, away her daughter from outside the house and took her tosome deserted place and committed rape on her. A case under Sections 363/376 of the Indian Penal Code was registered on: the basisof this statement. ( 4 ) THE prosicutrix was discharged from R. M. L. Hospital on 19/01/1988. Subsequently, the prosecutrix was declared fitfor statement whereupon her statement was recorded on 20/01/1988. ( 5 ) THE blood-stained trouser of Km. Qaiser, her sample bloodand vaginal swab, sealed with the seal of CMO, R. M. L. Hospitalwere handed over to ASI Narain Singh who seized them vide recovery memo Ex. Public Witness -11/b. The frock of the prosecutrix. was alsoseized vide seizure memo Ex. Public Witness -6/a. All of them were sent toc. F. S. L. for chemical analysis. The reports of Chemical examination are Ex. PA, PB, PC and PD. The reports with regard to themedical examination of the prosecutrix are Ex. Public Witness -8/a andex. Public Witness -8/b. The appellant was also got medically examined. The report in this regard is Ex. Public Witness -6/a. All of them were sent toc. F. S. L. for chemical analysis. The reports of Chemical examination are Ex. PA, PB, PC and PD. The reports with regard to themedical examination of the prosecutrix are Ex. Public Witness -8/a andex. Public Witness -8/b. The appellant was also got medically examined. The report in this regard is Ex. Public Witness -15/a. The statementsof the prosecution witnesses were recorded and after compietion ofinvestigation the charge sheet was submited against the appellant. " ( 6 ) THE learned Additional Sessions judge afler the appraisal ofthe evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the appellant to the halt. Hethus convicted him and sentenced him to different terms of imprisonment under different section of the Indian Penal Code, alluded toabove, ( 7 ) IT is in the above circumstances that the appellant is beforethis Court. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant Mr. I. U. Khan has vehemently contended that the learned lower court fell into a graveerror by coming to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty. According to the learned counsel there is absolutely no such evidenceon record to warrant such a finding. The learned counsel contendsthat the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that it was theappellant who committed the rape. Hence the instant case is acase of mistaken identity. The next limb of the argument advanc-ed by the learned counsel is that the prosecutrix was admittedlyfive years of age at the time of the incident. Thus she was a child. Hence it would be highly unsafe to place rehance on her statementunless her evidence is corroborated in. material particulars. Thereis no evidence to corroborate the said statement of the prosecutrx. Consequently the learned lower court was wrong in placing relianceon the said statement and to base the conviction thercon. Thestatements of the prosecution witnesses are replete with materialcontradictions and inconsistencies which render nugatory the entirecase of the prosecution. ( 9 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor. Mr. R. D. Jolly, has urgedto the contrary. According to him, the statement of the prosecutrix is clear and unequivocal. It finds support from the medicalevidence Ex. PA, PB, PC. and PD and Ex. Public Witness -15/a and fromthe statements of her father. Mohd. Qasim (PW-4) and mothermst. Anjuman Ara (PW-6) Hence the learned lower court wasright in its conclusion. Mr. R. D. Jolly, has urgedto the contrary. According to him, the statement of the prosecutrix is clear and unequivocal. It finds support from the medicalevidence Ex. PA, PB, PC. and PD and Ex. Public Witness -15/a and fromthe statements of her father. Mohd. Qasim (PW-4) and mothermst. Anjuman Ara (PW-6) Hence the learned lower court wasright in its conclusion. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant, Mr. I. U. Khan, has ledus through the statement of the prosecution witnesses in order toshow and Point out that the statements of the said witnesses arecontradictory to and inconsistent with one another. Thus they donot lead us anywhere. The star witness in the instant case i. e. Mohd. Bashir (PW-3) has deposed to the fact the person whom. he caught hold of is not the same pirson who is present before thiscourt. He has thus gone back on his previous stetement andas such,has not at all supported the case of the prosecution. Accouding to the case of the prosecution it was Mohd. Bashir who apprehended the appellant and produced him before the police. The saidstatement is contradictory to and inconsistant with the statement ofpw12 SI Satpal Kapoor. According to him it was Mohd. Qasim (PW4) who produced the appellant before the police while he wason his patrolling duty. Curiously enough Public Witness 5 Km. Qaisar is conspicuously silent on this point. Thus the case of the prosecution isshrouded in mystery which has not been unravelled. No witness hasthrown any light to arrive at a correct conclusion. ( 11 ) IT is true, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant,that there are contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements ofthe prosecution witnesses, however, they do not go to the root ofthe matter end the case of the prosecution is not liable to be flung tothe winds on the said score. A close scrutiny of the statement ofmohd. Bashir (PW3) reveals that it has been admitted by him thathe caught hold of a person on hearing the alarm by some person catch hold, catch hold He subsequently goes on to state that heneither saw Mohd. Qasim (PW4) raising the alarm nor the prosecutrix, Km. Qaisar (PW5), at that time. However, on being crossexamined it has been admitted by him that Public Witness 4 Mohd. Qasim waschasing a person and it was he (Mohd. Qasim) who was raising thealarn. Qasim (PW4) raising the alarm nor the prosecutrix, Km. Qaisar (PW5), at that time. However, on being crossexamined it has been admitted by him that Public Witness 4 Mohd. Qasim waschasing a person and it was he (Mohd. Qasim) who was raising thealarn. Thus this statement of Public Witness 3 Mohd. Bashir corroborates theprosecution version as given out by Public Witness 4 Mohd. Qasim that at theinstance of his daughter i. e. Km. Qaisar he chased a man who wassubsequently caught hold by Public Witness 3 Mohd. Bashir and produced beforethe police. ( 12 ) NOW, the only question which comes to the tip of the tongueis as to whether this Court would be justified in placing reliance onthe statement of a hostile witness? It is a well settled principle of lawthat simply because a witness has turned hostile his statement is notto be discarded and ignored in toto and is not washed off the record. If the Court finds that some thing is there in the statement of a hostilewitness worth placing the reliance it will be free to do so. We are inlined over here to cite the observations of their Lordships of thesupreme Court as reported in Syed Akbar v. State of Karnataka, (AIR 1979 S. C. 1848), wherein their Lordship relied on their earlierjudgment as reported in Sat Pal v. Delhi Administration (ATR 1976sc 294),. . . "even in a criminal procution when a witness iscross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the Court, by theparty calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law. be treatedas washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact toconsider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examinationand contradiction, the witness stands thoroughtly discredited or canstill he believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge findsthat in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completelyshaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of thewitness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light ofthe other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which hefinds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, thewhole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process,the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should,as a matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto. If in a given case, thewhole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process,the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should,as a matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto. " ( 13 ) THE above view was again reiterated in State of U. P. v. Chetram and others, (AIR 1989 S. C. 1543),. . . . "the High Court hasbrushed aside his entire evidence, which fully corroborates Public Witness 3,merely on the ground he had been declared a hostile witness. Thehigh Court has failed to bear in mind that merely because a witnessis declared hostile, his entire evidence does not get excluded or renderedunworthy of consideration. " ( 14 ) THE second question which arises for adjudication in the instantcase is as to whether the contradictions pointed out by the learnedcounsel for the appellant are so material as to set at night the entirecase of the prosecution? Our reply to the above querry is an emphatic no . It would be a hard not to crack to find out a case whichis benefit of embellishment, exaggeration, contradictionsand inconsistencies. The said things are natural. Such contradictions and inconsistencies are bound to creep in with the passage oftime. If the witnesses are not tutored they would come out with anatural and spontaneous version on their own. The two persons onbeing asked to reproduce a particular incident which they have witnessed with their own eyes would be unable to do so in like manner. Each one of them will narrate the same in his own words, accordingto his own perception and in proportion to his intelligence power ofobservation. ( 15 ) THE above view which we are taking finds support from theopinion of the Hon ble Supreme Court. It was opined in Boyaganganna and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1976 S. C. 1541 ). . . . "minor contradictions are bound to appear when ignorantand illiterate women are giving evidence. Even in case of trainedand educated persons, memory sometimes plays false and this wouldbe much more so in case of ignorant and rustic women. It must alsobe remembered that the evidence given by a witness would very muchdepend upon his power of observation and it is possible that someaspects of an incident may be observed by one witness while theymay not be witnessed by another though both are present at the sceneof offence. It must alsobe remembered that the evidence given by a witness would very muchdepend upon his power of observation and it is possible that someaspects of an incident may be observed by one witness while theymay not be witnessed by another though both are present at the sceneof offence. " ( 16 ) IT has next been contended by the learned counsel for theappellant that no implicit reliance can be placed on the statement ofthe prosecutrix unless she is corroborated in material particulars. Itis all the more so when the prosecutrix happens to be a child. We aresorry we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel. There is no such law which requires corroboration before the statement of the prosecutrix is acted upon. Admittedly, a prosecutrix isa competent witness (vide S. 118 of the Evidence Act ). She is notan accomplice within the domain of Section 133 of the Evidenceact. Thus, her statement does not require a corroboration within themeaning of Section 114b of the Evidence Act which provides that anaccomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in materialparticulars. The prosecutrix is a victim like any other victim of anyother offence. Hence the same weight is to be attached to her statement which requires to be attached to the statementof an injured person. Therefore, if the statement of the prosecutrix isquite clear and unequivocal on the point as to who has revishedher, there is no reason, whatsover, as to why the said statement, without any corroboration from any quarter, whatsoever, cannot form thebasis of conviction. Thus her statement is to be scrutinised like thestatement of say other witness and if there is a ring of truth about itand if it inspires confidence the Courts would be under an obligationto rely thereupon. In that eventuality they need not look for corroboration. ( 17 ) THERE is another aspect of the matter Such type of offenceslike molestation and rape are committed on the sly. The accusedpersons are always on the look out for secluded places which are notfrequented by the public for the commission of suchtype of offences. Thus more often than not no otherocular witness, to corroborate the testimony of a prosecutrix wouldbe available in such circumstances. Hence to look for corroboration in such type of cases would be a shear exercise in futility. Thus more often than not no otherocular witness, to corroborate the testimony of a prosecutrix wouldbe available in such circumstances. Hence to look for corroboration in such type of cases would be a shear exercise in futility. ( 18 ) WE are fortified in our above view by the observations oftheir Lordships of the Supreme Court as reported in State of Maharashtra v. Chanderprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550 ,wherein Hon ble Mr. Justice Ahmadi, speaking for the Court observedas under : "we think it proper, having regard to the increase in thenumber of sex violation cases in the recent past, particularly casesof molestation and rape in custody, to remove the nation, if it persists, that the testimony of a woman who is a victim of sexual violencemust ordinarily be corroborated in material particulars except in therarest of rare cases. To insist on corroboration except in the rarest ofrare cases is to equate a woman who is a victim of the lust of anotherwith an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. Itwould be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her story ofwoe will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars ]as in the CMC of an accomplice to a crime. Ours is a conservative society where it concerns sexual behaviour. Ours is not a permissive society as in some of the Western and European countries. Our standard of decency and morality in public life is not the sameas in those countries. It is however, unfortunate that respect forwomanhood in our country is on the decline and cases of molestationand rape are steadily growing. . . . . Courts, must also realise thatordinarily a women, more so a young girl, will not stake her reputationby levelling a false charge concerning her chastity. " ( 19 ) THE above view was reiterated in Karnel Sjngh v. State of M. P. , JT 1995 (6) S. C. 437 (vide para B ). ( 20 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has further argued that inthe instant case the prosecutrix is simply a child, five years of age. Hence it would be highly unsafe to place reliance on her statementwithout corroboration in material particulars. ( 20 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has further argued that inthe instant case the prosecutrix is simply a child, five years of age. Hence it would be highly unsafe to place reliance on her statementwithout corroboration in material particulars. The learned counsalin support of his contention has relied upon the observations of theirlordships of the Supreme Court as reported in Caetano Piedadefennandes and another v. Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu,panaji, Goa, (AIR 1977 S. C. 135 ). Their Lordships opined""turning first to the evidence of Xavier, it may be pointed out straightway that he was a child witness aged only 6 years at the time whenhe gave evidence. His evidence is, therefore, to be approached withgreat caution. He was, according to the prosecution, the only eyewitness to the crime. We have carefully gone through his evidence-,but we are constrained to observe that even after making the Utmostallowance in his favour in view of the fact that he is a child witness,we find it difficult to accept his testimony. " ( 21 ) TO the same effect are the observaions of a Division Benchof the Assam High Court as reported in Sukuram Khadia v. State, 1986 (2) CRIMES 540 , and of a Division Bench of this Court invijay Kumar v. The State, 1981 Cr. L. J. NOC138 (Delhi ). ( 22 ) IT is manifest from above that the settled legal position withregard to the testimony of a child witness is that before it is reliedupon. Courts must insist on corroboration. Thus, the question whichfalls for decision before this Court is as to whether there is sufficientcorroboration to the statement of Public Witness 5 i. e. the prosecutrix. She has inher own words that of a child, in unequivocal terms deposed to thefact that the accused i. e. the present appellant beat her and had done dirty thing to her private parts as a result whereof she bled. ( 23 ) THE above statement of the prosecutrix finds support fromthe statement of Public Witness B, Dr. Rani Jain of R. M. L. Hospital who examined her person immediately after the occurrence. She foundabrasion and bruises on her right cheek. On local examination, sheobserved complete perineal tear (vide Ex. Public Witness 8/a ). ( 23 ) THE above statement of the prosecutrix finds support fromthe statement of Public Witness B, Dr. Rani Jain of R. M. L. Hospital who examined her person immediately after the occurrence. She foundabrasion and bruises on her right cheek. On local examination, sheobserved complete perineal tear (vide Ex. Public Witness 8/a ). She has ingoes on to state that she was operated upon for repair of perineal falls for decision before this Court as to whether there is sufficienttear (vide Ex. FW 8/b ). Her case sheet is Ex. PA. on being askedas whether the said perineal tear could be causedon account of rape, the doctor opined in the affirmative. Shehas further very categorically stated that there is no possibility, ofperineal tear having been caused on account of a fall. She hasfurther deposed to the fact that the injury could have endangersthe life in the absence of the surgical aid. ( 24 ) THERE is further corroboration with regard to the identity ofthe appellant also in the form of the statement of Public Witness 4 Mohd. Qasimi. e. the father of the girl whom she reported immediately after theoccurrence, and Public Witness 6, her mother i. e. Mst. Anjuman Ara. Both ofthem found the child bleeding from her private parts as a result where ofher frock was smeared with blood. There was further a tooth bitmark on her right cheek as per the statement of Mst. Anjuman Ara (PW6 ). Mohd. Qasim (PW4) has deposed to the fact that on 26/01/1988 at about 4. 00 p. m. while he was carrying thprosecutrix Km. Qaisar in his lap, on the road his daughter all ofsudden screamed. On being asked as to what had happened to hershe pointed out towards the appellant and said that he was the saidperson. The appellant thereupon started running. He shouted "catchhold, catch hold" whereupon he was chased by one Mohd. Bashir (PW3), and certain other persons who were returning offering theirprayers. Mohd. Bashir caught hold of him and produced him before thepolice. Public Witness 3, Mohd. Bashir, it is true has resiled from his previousstatement However, he has corroborated the statement of Public Witness 4 Mohdqasim to this extent that Mohd. Qasim (PW4) was running aftercertain person and was raising the alarm. Then it is in the statement ofpw12, SI Satpal Kapoor, that the appellant was produced before himby Mohd. Qasim. Public Witness 3, Mohd. Bashir, it is true has resiled from his previousstatement However, he has corroborated the statement of Public Witness 4 Mohdqasim to this extent that Mohd. Qasim (PW4) was running aftercertain person and was raising the alarm. Then it is in the statement ofpw12, SI Satpal Kapoor, that the appellant was produced before himby Mohd. Qasim. The said statement of Public Witness 12 SI Satpal Kapoorhas been assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant on theground that it is contiradictory to the statements of Mohd. Qasim (PW4) and Mohd. Bashir (PW3 ). ( 25 ) WE do not find any such contradiction inasmuch as the policeofficers, including Public Witness 12 SI Satpal Kapoor reached the spot wherethe appellant had been apprehended and it was thereafter that theappellant Was arrested. Thus there were a large number of persons atthat time. Therefore, there is nothing strange in such a situation. Public Witness 12si Satpal Kapoor mentioned the name of the complainant Mohd. Qasimis the person who produced the appellant. Thus we feel that nothingtunrs on that. ( 26 ) PUBLIC Witness 4 Mohd. Qasim has further got this to say with regardto the identity of the appellant that immediately after the occurrencehis daughter told her that a person wih big eyes, wearing whie shirttook her away on the pretext of arranging the sweets, to a placepartly constructed and known as ganda Ghar" and ravished her andtreatened her with a knife that her faipily would be liquidated. Theis admissible in evidence under Section 8, Illustration (j) of theevidence Act. It is in the following words :- ( 27 ) "the question whether A was revished. The facts that, shortlyafter the alleged rape, she made a complaint relating to the crime,the circumstances under which, and the terms in which, the complaintwas made, are relevant. " ( 28 ) IT was urged before us that a test identification parade ofthe appellant was required and the same was deliberately not resortedto as the child was made to identify the appellan as the culprit at thepolice station. There is no merit in this contention inasmuch as Public Witness 4mohd. Qasim had deposed that the appellant was identified on pointingout by the child and thus was apprehended and handed over to thepolice. There is no plea of the appellant that he was apprehendedand arrested in any other way. There is no merit in this contention inasmuch as Public Witness 4mohd. Qasim had deposed that the appellant was identified on pointingout by the child and thus was apprehended and handed over to thepolice. There is no plea of the appellant that he was apprehendedand arrested in any other way. So later identification of the appellantby the child at the police station was of no consequence. As such,test identification parade was also not required. ( 29 ) FURTHERMORE, to be on our tiptoe and guard and ex abundanticautela we had sent for the appellant and we found that the appellenthad prominent eyes on his face and as such, the descripion given bythe prosecutix corresponds fully with his features. ( 30 ) MOREOVER, we are of the view that the children are mostinnocent and innocuous creatures. They are not prone to tell Fesunless they are taught to do so. By that time they have not learntthe art of telling lies which they subsequently learn from their elders. They are very nice observers and as such they perceive even theslightest wrong which is done to them. They are very inquisitive andtry to learn things. It was rightly observed by Richter "the smallestchildren are nearest to God, as the smallest planets are nearest the Sun. " ( 31 ) WE are also tempted here to cite a few lines from the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Vijay Kumar v. The Stale,cr. Appeal No. 165178 dated 9/03/1981. At the same time, ifotherwise the testimony of a child witness is not shown to be taintedwith any such infirmities, it calls for due credence. A child in theinnocent purity of its mind and unsophistication is more lively tocome-forth with version which is unbiased, unsoiled, natural andforthright. " ( 32 ) THERE is yet another aspect of the matter. Admittedly theappellant is a stranger. This is not his defence as set out in hisstatement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. that the prosecution witnessesars immically disposed towards him. Thus it does not appeal to thereason as to why the complainant and his other family memberswould like to falsely implicate an innocent person. It is but naturalthat they would like to see only the guilty person to be punished. that the prosecution witnessesars immically disposed towards him. Thus it does not appeal to thereason as to why the complainant and his other family memberswould like to falsely implicate an innocent person. It is but naturalthat they would like to see only the guilty person to be punished. ( 33 ) WHILE dealing with a similar situation it was observed inprithi Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (AIR 1989 S. C. 702), "it i sot possible to believed that the prosecutrix and her parentswould allow the real culprit to escape and falsely involve an innocentperson, for the commission of the crime. " ( 34 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has then contended that theappellant is a young man with no previousc viction against him. He is a married person. His aged parent and wife are dependent onhim fort thr bread inasmuch as he is the sole bread-earner of hisfamily. He has been sentenced to undergo life risonment for an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The said punishment is out of all proportion. The appellant should have been dealtwith by the learned lower court leniently. The punishment shouldalways be awarded keeping in view the gravity of the crime committed by the accused- Thus it should be commensurate with thegravity of the offence. ( 35 ) WE agree with the learned counsel on the point of sentence. It is a well established principle of law that the accused personsshould be death with condign punishment which is just and proper inthe circumstances of a given case keeping in view the gravity of theoffence and the circumstances of the crime under which the allegedoffence was committed. Thus punishment awarded must be consistent with and conform to the gravity of the crime after taking intoconsideration all the circumstances under which the said offence wascommitted. It is also a well recognised principle of the theory ofpunishment that the compassion need not be given the go-by to at thetime of passing the judgment. The appellant was admittedly a youngman 21 years of age at the time of the cortimission of the offence. He committed the said offence on account of an erotic impulse andwith a view to satisfy the same. The prosecutrix after the operationhas recovered. She is hale and hearty now. The appellant was admittedly a youngman 21 years of age at the time of the cortimission of the offence. He committed the said offence on account of an erotic impulse andwith a view to satisfy the same. The prosecutrix after the operationhas recovered. She is hale and hearty now. ( 36 ) KEEPING in view the above circumstances we think a sentenceof ten years R. I. with a fine of Rs. 2,000 would be sufficient enoughto meet the ends of justice under Section 376 of the Indian. Penalcode. In case of his failure to clear the fine die appellant wouldundergo RI for six months. The sentences awarded by the learnedlower court under other Sections of the Indian Penal Code are herebymaintained. The sentences would run concurrently as per the directionof the lower court. ( 37 ) IN view of the above, the conviction is maintained. The appeal is allowed to the above extent only and the judgment and order passed by the learned lower court are modified accordingly.