JUDGMENT 1. - By the order dated 28.9.1994, the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, Sri Ganganagar, has convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced him to the rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.2000/-. A further simple imprisonment for two months was directed in default of payment of fine. 2. Against this conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred. 3. I have heard the arguments of both the sides. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has stated at Bar that he does not challenge the conviction, but has contended that it is a fit case where leniency in the sentence should be taken. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has no objection if a lenient view in the matter of sentence is taken. 6. In the case of Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v. Union of India and Ors., (1995) S.C.C.(Cri)(7) , the Supreme Court has observed as under:- "Rape does indeed pose a series of problems for the criminal justice system. There are cries for harshest penalties, but often times such cries eclipse the real plight of the victim. Rape is an experience which shakes the foundations of the lives of the victims." 7. The Supreme Court while stressing the need for victim oriented attitude and noting the major shift in penological thinking, reflecting the growing importance attached to restitution and reparation over the more narrowly retributive aims of conventional punishment, has indicated the broad parameters is assisting the victims of rape. One of them is the recruitment of compensation for the victims. The Apex Court in this regard has observed as under:- "Compensation for victims shall be awarded by the Court on conviction of the offender." The victim-oriented penological principles can be given effect by reducing the sentence of imprisonment, but in addition imposing a heavy fine which may be paid to the victim by way of compensation. This has been done by the Apex Court in the case of Sarup Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 S.C. 2452 , though that case was related to the offence under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C. 8. In the case in hand, the accused-appellant was in early of twenties at the time of crime and has already undergone imprisonment for two years and five months. In the case in hand, the accused-appellant was in early of twenties at the time of crime and has already undergone imprisonment for two years and five months. The learned Public Prosecutor has frankly said at Bar that the accused is with no criminal antecedent save this offence and it appears to have been committed at the spur of moment and passion. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court in the case of Phul Singh v. State of Haryana, 1980 Cri.L.J. 8 has reduced the sentence from four years to two years for the offence under section 376, IPC, and in case of Raju v. State of Karnataka, 1994 S.C.C. (Cri.) 538 considering the young age of the accused, the Apex Court has reduced the sentence from 7 years R.I. to 3 years R.I. This Court in the case of Kana Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 212 has reduced the sentence of 10 years R.I. to 3 years R.I. after taking into account the young age of the accused. In my opinion taking into account overall the facts and the circumstances of the case in hand, the ends of justice will be met if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and in addition to fine of Rs. 15,000/- is imposed. The amount of fine may be directed to be paid to the victim by way of compensation. Of course, if the fine is not paid within three months, the appellant-accused shall undergo a further rigorous imprisonment of 4 years in default of payment of fine. 9. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 376, IPC, is maintained and upheld, but the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years awarded by the learned trial Court is reduced to the imprisonment for the period already undergone, but the sentence of fine is increased to Rs. 15,000/- which shall be paid by the accused-appellant within three months. In case the fine is not paid within the stipulated period, the accused-appellant shall undergo a further rigorous imprisonment for four years in default of fine. The amount of fine shall be paid to the prosecutrix, Smt. Nanki w/o Shri Lichhman Ram, by way of compensation. 10. The accused-appellant is in jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. The amount of fine shall be paid to the prosecutrix, Smt. Nanki w/o Shri Lichhman Ram, by way of compensation. 10. The accused-appellant is in jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. The accused appellant shall deposit the fine of Rs. 15,000/-(Fifteen Thousand) in the learned trial Court within three months, failing which the learned trial Court shall cause him to be re-arrested for undergoing the further rigorous imprisonment for four years in default of payment of fine. The fine if so deposited shall be paid to the prosecutrix, Smt. Nanki w/o Shri Lichhman Naik by way of compensation.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******