JUDGMENT LOKESHWAR SINGH, J.—Harbilas accused-respondent was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Una for offences under Sections 376 and 377, I.P.C. for having committed rape and carnal intercourse on a girl of about 8 1/2 years of age and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for three months under Section 376, I.P.C. and for offence under Section 377, I.P.C, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default thereof furt her imphsonment for three months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the fine, if realised, was ordered to be paid to the prosecutrix. It may be stated that the accused-respondent did not challenge the judgment and order dated 23.7.1997 passed by the learned Trial Judge. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge, the State of Himachal Pradesh preferred the present appeal under Section 377, Cr.P.C. on the ground of inadequacy of sentences imposed upon the accused-respondent. This Court on 16.12.1997 appointed Shri Anup Chitkara, Advocate to conduct this appeal on behalf of the accused-respondent as he could not engage any lawyer to defend due to his financial position. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is as follows: Naresh Kumar, husband of Smt. Sandhya (PW.1) and father of prosecutrix Kumari Veena (PW.2) and the accused-respondent are residents of village Ambota, Tehsil Amb, District Una. They are living in the same vicinity. On 6.1.1997 when the prosecutrix Kumari Veena was playing in the vicinity of her house near the house of the accused-respondent, the accused-respondent alleged to have taken her to a room of his house. The accused-respondent forcibly committed sexual intercourse and also voluntarily had carnal intercourse with her in his house. Kumari Veena started bleeding and her clothes were drenched with blood. She returnee* to her house weeping and seeing the prosecutrix in that state, PW. Smt. Sandhya her mother questioned her about the matter. The prosecutrix narrated to her mother that she had been forcibly raped and was also subjected to unnatural offence by the accused-respondent in his house matter being laid on the cot. Smt. Sandhya checked the vaginal part as well as anus of the person of the prosecutrix which were found to be bleeding. 3. The prosecutrix narrated to her mother that she had been forcibly raped and was also subjected to unnatural offence by the accused-respondent in his house matter being laid on the cot. Smt. Sandhya checked the vaginal part as well as anus of the person of the prosecutrix which were found to be bleeding. 3. Naresh Kumar, husband of Smt. Sandhya was not present at his house as he had gone to earn his wages being a labourer in the State of Punjab Smt. Sandhya could trace out the whereabouts of her husband after three days of the taking place of the incident and on learning about the occurrence Naresh Kumar returned to his house. He immediately went to Police Station, Gagret along with Smt. Sandhya. Smt. Sandhya lodged F.I.R (Ext. Pa) dated 10.1.997 at 2 p.m. S.I./SHO. Shri Kailash Chand (PW. 9) immediately rushed to the scene of occurrence and prepared site plan (Ext. PW, 9/A) of the house of the accused-respondent. He arrested the accused-respondent on 11.1.1997 and recorded his disclosure statement (Ext. PW. 5/A) about concealing the socks in the room of his house under a grain container. Thereafter, the accused-respondent took out one piece of socks and handed it over to the Investigating Officer which was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ext. PW. 5/ B), as the same was alleged to have been used by the accused-respondent to wipe out the blood. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and got the prosecutrix and the accused-respondent medically examined from the Doctor On receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner Ext. PW. 9/C and after completing the necessary investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed before the Sessions Judge against the accused-respondent for trial. 4. Learned Sessions Judge framed charge sheet against the accused-respondent under Sections 376 and 377,1.P.C. The accused-respondent denied the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. He pleaded that he was innocent. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses of whom Smt. Sandhya Devi (PW. 1) is the mother of prosecutrix, Kumari Veena (PW. 2) is the prosecutrix, Dr. Rajiv Kumar (PW. 3) medically examined the prosecutrix and the accused-respondent, Tilak Raj (PW. 4), Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Ambota, Bhagwanti (PW. 5), Member Panchayat, Gram Panchayat, Ambota and S.I. Shri Kailash Chand (PW. 9), Investigating Officer. 1) is the mother of prosecutrix, Kumari Veena (PW. 2) is the prosecutrix, Dr. Rajiv Kumar (PW. 3) medically examined the prosecutrix and the accused-respondent, Tilak Raj (PW. 4), Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Ambota, Bhagwanti (PW. 5), Member Panchayat, Gram Panchayat, Ambota and S.I. Shri Kailash Chand (PW. 9), Investigating Officer. Apart from the ocular evidence of these witnesses, the prosecution also relied upon the documentary evidence including M.L.C. (Ext. PC) of the prosecutrix. M.L.C. (Ext. PD) of the accused-respondent, birth certificate (Ext. PE) proving the date of birth of prosecutrix Kumar Veena and Chemical Examiner report (Ext. P-9/C). 5. The accused-respondent in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded that he had been false)/ implicated in the present crime because he had some quarrel with the mother of the prosecutrix over a watertap and that his father was a guarantor to a loan borrowed by the father of the prosecutrix from the Kangra Central Co-operative Bank and that the Bank officials had made a demand of returning the loan amount from his father and, therefore, his father asked the father of the prosecutrix to clear the outstanding loan amount. On account of this fact, their relations were strained. However, he examined Shri Kishori Lai (DW. 1), Supervisor, Khadi and Gramodyog, Una in his defence to prove that the father of the prosecutrix obtained loan of Rs. 1,600 from the Board it the year 1985 and Gurdev Chand father of the accused-respondent was a guarantor. 6. The learned Trial Judge after carefully scrutinising the oral and documentary evidence on record by judgment and order dated 23.7.1997 found the prosecution evidence acceptable agaisnt the accused-respondent and accordingly convicted him under Section 376 and 377 I.P.C. and sentenced him as aforesaid. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate-General and learned Legal Aid Counsel to the accused-respondent. The learned Additional Advocate-General has contended that the punishment awarded by the learned Trial Judge is grossly inadequate in the facts and circumstances of the case and no adequate and special reasons were recorded by the Court below in this judgment imposing imprisonment for a term of less than 10 years. The learned Additional Advocate-General has contended that the punishment awarded by the learned Trial Judge is grossly inadequate in the facts and circumstances of the case and no adequate and special reasons were recorded by the Court below in this judgment imposing imprisonment for a term of less than 10 years. He also contended that the sentence of two years recorded agaisnt the accused-respondent for the commission of offence punishable under Section 377, I.P.C. is also in on the very lower side and deserves to be enhanced, as the crime committed by the accused-respondent is of very heinous nature. 7. On the other hand, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the accused-respondent vehemently urged that despite the fact that no appeal was preferred by the accused-respondent against his conviction and sentence, the accused-respondent is entitled for acquittal if it is found that the prosecution case is highly improbable and unbelievable on the basis of the evidence led in the present case. He contended that the prosecutrix did not name the accused before doctor when the history-sheet of the case was prepared by him in M.L.C. (Ext. PC). She only said that one Papu raped her and it was not explained by her that it was the accused only who was also named as Papu and, therefore, the identity of the accused was not established in the present case. He then contended that the accused hat. been wrongly convicted for the offence under Section 377, I.P.C. since there is no evidence brought on record by the prosecution that the accused had committed unnatural offence with the prosecutrix. He further contended that the prosecutrix and her mother have falsely cooked up the case agaisnt the accused because of enmity as pleaded by him in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and, therefore, it was not safe to accept their evidence. We see no substance of any of these contentions. In the absence of any material on record, it is difficult to reject in any manner the evidence of PWs. Smt. Sandya Devi, and Kumari Veena. Both these witnesses had no axe to grind againt the accused. We see no substance of any of these contentions. In the absence of any material on record, it is difficult to reject in any manner the evidence of PWs. Smt. Sandya Devi, and Kumari Veena. Both these witnesses had no axe to grind againt the accused. The defence of the accused-respondent that since his father asked the father of the prosecutrix to clear the loan amount and the latter had failed to do so and that he being a guarantor of the loan amount, there were strained relations between the two families on this account, is not acceptable. The loan amount was obtained by the father of the prosecutrix in the year 1985 and if the loan amount was not paid by the father of the prosecutrix, it was not expected from the family of Naresh Kumar to have got this case instituted against the accused on false accusation. There is no dispute about the age of the prosecutrix to be 8 and 9 years in the month of January, 1997 when the offence was committed. The prosecution has proved the age of the prosecutrix through the oral evidence of her mother Smt. Sandhya Devi. Dr. Rajiv Kumar and Tilak Raj, Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Ambota. PW. Tilak Raj placed on record a copy of Panchayat register (Ext. PE). From the extract of the copy, the name of the prosecutrix finds mention at serial No. 13 and her date of birth was entered as March 17, 1988. Doctor Rajiv Kumar who medically examined the prosecutrix also opined in his M.L.C. (Ext. PC) that the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the commission of the offence was about nine years. Smt. Sandhya Devi, the mother of the prosecutrix deposed that at the relevant time the age of the prosecutrix was about 8 1/2 years. The accused-respondent has not made any attempt to challenge the age of the prosecutrix and, therefore, it has been rightly held by the learned Trial Judge that the prosecutrix was about nine years of age in the month of January 1997 when the offence was committed. 8. The prosecutrix was examined as PW. 2 but she could not understand the sanctity of oath as recorded by the learned Trial Judge and. therefore, she was examined without administering the oath. She testified that she knew the accused who is also named as Papu. 8. The prosecutrix was examined as PW. 2 but she could not understand the sanctity of oath as recorded by the learned Trial Judge and. therefore, she was examined without administering the oath. She testified that she knew the accused who is also named as Papu. She categorically stated that accused had taken her inside the room and bolted it from inside. He gagged her mouth and thereafter taken out her payjami and then he applied his male organ on her private part which resulted bleeding from her vagina, he cleaned the blood from her vaginal and anus parts with socks and thereafter, she left his house weeping and came to her house and then narrated the entire incident to her mother. Her deposition finds corroboration from the testimony of Smt. Sandhya Devi who has categorically stated that the prosecutrix returned her house at about 12.45 afternoon and was weeping. Her clothes were drenched with blood and on her enquiry the prosecutrix told her that the accused had taken the latter by force in a room of his house, laid her on the charpoy and thereafter sexually assaulted her by removing her payjami. On her checking, the vaginal and anus parts of the prosecutrix, she noticed blood over these two parts of the persons of the prosecutrix. She also stated that her husband is a labourer working on daily wages with some contractor in State of Punjab and he was not present at his house on the day of occurrence. She searched him continuously for three days and it was only on the 4th day that he was located at place known as Mehangarwal. The entire incident was narrated to him and thereafter he came to his village and they both went to the Police Station, Gagret and lodged F.I.R. (Ext. PA). In her cross-examination, she categorically denied the suggestion of the defence that there was a quarrel between her and the members of the family of the accused regarding taking water from the tap. She has also denied the suggestion that the accused has been implicated falsely in the case out of animosity. The oral testimony of these two witnesses has been corroborated by medical evidence. It has been noticed by Dr. Rajiv Kumar Garg in his M.L.C. (Ext. She has also denied the suggestion that the accused has been implicated falsely in the case out of animosity. The oral testimony of these two witnesses has been corroborated by medical evidence. It has been noticed by Dr. Rajiv Kumar Garg in his M.L.C. (Ext. PC) that the hymen of the prosecutrix was found torn and vagina admitted one finger i.e. little finger with great difficulty. On examination of the anus of the prosecutrix doctor opined that the prosecutrix was assaulted from the anus with an object which was disproportionate to the size of the vaginal and anal canal. He also opined that the prosecutrix had been subjected to intercourse and the object had penetrated into the vagina which ruptured the hymen and had caused tear to the anal canal. He also took blood samples of the prosecutrix which were of AB group. He also medically examined the accused on 11.1.1997 and issued medico legal certificate (Ext. PD) and according to his opinion no injuries or tears were found present on his penis. In his cross-examination, the doctor has categorically denied the suggestion of the defence that the tears and the injuries found on the anus of the prosecutrix were caused while wiping stool with a rough piece of cloth. He has also denied the suggestion that his opinion is contrary to the factual position of the incident and the injuries on the private parts of the prosecutrix. The prosecution has also examined Bhagwanti PW. 5), Member of Gram Panchayat who was a marginal witness of the disclosure statement (Ext. PW 5/A) made by the accused during the investigation about discovery of socks concealed by him underneath the grain container in his house. In her presence one piece of socks (Ext. P-3) was recovered which contained blood and was sent to the Chemical Examiner for opinion. In the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ext. PW. 9/C). the blood group of prosecutrix Kumari Veena was AB and the same blood group was found on the piece of socks (Ext. P-3). The report also shows that on the piece of the socks stains of human semen were also found. In the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ext. PW. 9/C). the blood group of prosecutrix Kumari Veena was AB and the same blood group was found on the piece of socks (Ext. P-3). The report also shows that on the piece of the socks stains of human semen were also found. The report of the Chemical Examiner also corroborates the testimony of the prosecutrix and her mother that after committing the sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, the accused wiped out the blood from the private parts of the persons of the prosecutrix and the same piece of socks was recovered at his instance, on the basis of the disclosure statement made by him in the presence of PW. Bhagwanti. The blood on the said piece of socks was found of AB group which is the blood group of the prosecutrix. After going through the entire evidence on record discussed in the earlier part of this judgment, we are satisfied that the evidence suffers from no infirmity and the learned Trial Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution and the identity of the accused has been established beyond any shadow of doubt. We have no hesitation whatsoever in confirming the findings of convictions recorded by the learned Trial Judge. 9. This case represents certain facts that require to be specially highlighted, the first of them is the fact that this happens to be sexual assault and carnal intercourse on a child of tender years. The law has made specific provision for rigorous imprisonment in respect of offences of these categories and it would be total mockery of .he Justice Dispensation System if leniency is to be shown to depraved persons in cases of this type. The physical injuries apart, the mental trauma involved are good grounds to categorises it as one of the worst forms of anti-social offences and under these circumstances, in our considered view, the leniency displayed by the learned Trial Judge was totally misplaced. The argument of the learned Legal Aid Counsel that the accused was a young man of 18 years of age belonging to a poor strata of society, totally fails to convince us. A human being of the age of 18-years and studied up to matriculation standard is sufficiently grown up and even in society it is intolerable for males of this age to indulge themselves in sexual assaults on tender young girls. A human being of the age of 18-years and studied up to matriculation standard is sufficiently grown up and even in society it is intolerable for males of this age to indulge themselves in sexual assaults on tender young girls. Under these circumstances, to our mind the provisions for rigorous punishments that have been specially prescribed by he Legislature particularly alter the amendment of Section 376, I.P.C. require to be seriously applied with a degree of high standard as it is expected to act as a social deterrent and an eye-opener to those who have similar inclinations. It appears that the learned trial Judge has lost sight of the provisions of Clause (f) Sub-section (2) of Section 376, I.P.C. while imposing lesser sentence upon the accused. Admittedly, the prosecutrix is less than 12 years of age, in the present case and the punishment prescribed under the law in such like cases shall not be less than rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life. Sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than ten years can be imposed by the Court for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment under the proviso. Under Section 377, I.P.C. the accused can be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years. Having regard to the situation of the case, the sentence of two years imprisonment without specifying whether it was in the nature of rigorous or simple awarded by the learned trial Judge for the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. and imprisonment of two years under Section 377, I.P.C. are grossly inadequate and, therefore, are set aside. Considering the age of the accused. belonging to socially backward strata of the society, of a village and on the top of it the fact that the accused is a first offender, we are of the considered view that instead of awarding maximum sentences provided under Sections 376 and 377 I.P.C, it is directed that the accused shall undergo a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs, 2,000 in default rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 376, I.P.C. As regards the sentence under Section 377 I.P.C, the accused shall suffer a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default thereof rigorous imprisonment for three months. The substantive sentences awarded shall run concurrently. The fine, if realised, shall be paid to the prosecutrix as a token of compensation for the mental and physical torture suffered by her. 10. For the reasons discussed above, the appeal accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The sentences recorded by the trial Court shall stand modified in the aforesaid terms. Appeal allowed. -