JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17th February, 1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road, District, Sirohi convicting the appellant Movna of offence under section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment. The appellant has also been convicted and sentenced for cognate offences i.e. 366, 458, 354 & I.P.C. All the sentence have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed during the trial is that P.W. 3 Laxman Jogi along with his wife P.W.1 Mst. Ramba and their daughter Miss Aarti aged 3 years used to reside in a hut on the road in Moras. P.W.3 Laxman was in the field to take watch the crop of gram. At about 10.00 hearing the out cry of P.W.1 Mst. Ramba, he rushed to the hut. P.W.2 Durga Ram also reached on the spot. Mst. Ramba disclosed that the appellant Movna entered in the hut and tried to molest her. However she escaped and i came out. The appellant Movna picked up her daughter Mst. Aarti and ran away. He alongwith his wife and P.W.2 Durga Ram went in search of the accused and Mst. Aarti. She was found lying injured in a drain. There was profuse bleeding from her private parts. An information of the incident was immediately given to the S.H.O. Police Station, Pindwara on telephone. P.W.8 1 Dinesh Singh the S.H.O., Police Station , Pindwara reached on the spot. A written report of the occurrence Ex. P.7 was submitted to him on the spot. The police registered a case for offence under sections 376, 366A, 354 & 458 I.P.C. After usual investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the appellant for the said offences. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 11 witnesses and produced certain documents. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against him. Analysing the evidence, the trial court found the prosecution case proved and as such convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner noticed above. 4. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against him. Analysing the evidence, the trial court found the prosecution case proved and as such convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner noticed above. 4. We have scanned, scrutinised and evaluated the prosecution evidence carefully and considered the contentions raised by Shri Baljinder Singh Sandhu learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant. 5. The victim Aarti being the girl of 3 years age has not been produced P.W.5 Noor Mohd. has stated that he examined Aarti aged 3 years and prepared the injury report Ex. P. 9. He noticed following injuries on her person:- "Laceration of Libia majora, Libia minora, hymen ruptured, laceration extended upto rectum, she also developed Recto vaginal fistula, fresh blood is coming out from laceration". He opined that Baby Aarti and definitely undergone forceful sexual intercourse with injuries to genitals. 6. P.W.9 Dr. Pravin Mathur has stated that the case of Baby Aarti was referred to him. He examined her on 12th February, 1998 and performed the operation on 16th February, 1998. He has proved the Bed Head Ticket Ex. P.16 dated 12th February, 1998. He also proved the operation note Ex. P. 17. He has also proved the other documents pertaining to her treatment i.e. Ex. P. 18, Ex. P. 19 & Ex. P. 21.The medical examination clearly shows that Baby Aarti was raped. 7. P.W.1 Mst. Ramba has stated that on the date of incident, she was alone in the hut alongwith her daughter Mst. Aarti aged 3 years. They were sleeping in the hut. Her husband was in the field watching the crop of Gram. At that time the accused Movna entered in the hut under the influence of liquor. He was carrying a "Chhura" in his hand. He trial to outrage her modesty. She ran outside. He picked up her daughter, who was sleeping on the cot inside the hut. She made an alarm, which attracted her husband P.W.3 Laxman. She also stated that her husband Laxman and other villagers also reached on the spot. P.W.2 Durga Ram was asked to inform the police on telephone. They went in search of Baby Aarti. She was found lying in a drain. A blood-stained muffler was also found on the spot. She made an alarm, which attracted her husband P.W.3 Laxman. She also stated that her husband Laxman and other villagers also reached on the spot. P.W.2 Durga Ram was asked to inform the police on telephone. They went in search of Baby Aarti. She was found lying in a drain. A blood-stained muffler was also found on the spot. It was clear that her daughter Baby Aarti was subjected to rape. Nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of this witness. 8. P.W. Laxman is the father of the victim. His statement is almost in the line of P.W. 1 Mst. Ramba .Similar is the statement of P.W.2 Durga Ram. Nothing has been elicited from the statement of these two witnesses to discredit their testimony. P.W. 8 Dinesh Singh is the Investigating Officer. He has stated that in the night at about 10.30, he received a telephonic message about the incident of abducting a girl in village Moras. He has stated that he made the entry of the information in the Rojnamcha and left for village Moras. He also stated that a written F.I.R. was submitted to him at village Moras. Though there is no direct evidence of rape, but the statements of P.W. 1 Ramba, P.W. 2 Durga Ram and P.W. 3 Laxman corroborated by medical evidence and prompt report to police lead to irresistible conclusion that Baby Aarti was raped by none else but by the appellant. The trial court has rightly convicted him for offence under section 376 I.P.C. and the cognate offences. 9. As far as sentence is concerned it is submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant is young boy of 20 years age. The sentence of life imprisonment is too harsh. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion the ends of justice would meet if the sentence is reduced to the period of ten years. 10. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and the cognate offences, the sentence for offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is reduced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. The fine awarded his maintained. The appellant is in Jail. He will serve out the remaining part of the sentence.Appeal partly allowed. *******