This is a Jail appeal preferred by appellant Balram against his conviction under Section 376 I. P. C. and consequent sentence of imprisonment for life. 2. Brief facts of the case as contained in the First Information Report are that the daughter of the informant Jagdish was working in the field of one Munnu Babu. The appellant, a servant of Munnu Babu, took her from the paddy field into another field and committed rape on her at about 5. 00 p. m. Appellant ran away from the spot. Appellant was seen running away by Ramendra Kumar. This F. I. R. was registered at P. S. Bilhour, District Kanpur on 23-7- 1990 at 7. 30 p. m. Distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is 5 miles. This F. I. R. is Ex. Ka-6. 3. The victim of this incident was subjected to medical examination on 24-7-1990 at 12. 10 a. m. by Dr. Kusum Dubey, P. W. 1. Her medical examination report is Ex. Ka-1. This report does not disclose that any rape was committed. In this report it was also mentioned that no injury over any other part of the body was seen. There was damage to her private part. There existed vaginal tear of second degree. Blood was still trickling down the tear. 4. The appellant denied prosecution case in its entirety. His contention was that he was involved in the case on account of enmity. In response to question No. 18 he stated that he was assaulted at the police station at the instance of Sipahi Lal and his brother Jauhari Lal and one half of his Moonchh (moustache) was also saved. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined P. W. 1, Dr. Kusum Dubey. She conducted medical examination of the prosecutrix and proved her injury report as well. P. W. 2 Geeta is the prosecutrix. P. W. 3, Jagdish is father of the prosecutrix and first informant in the present case. Formal witness P. W. 4, S. I. Brij Kishore Dwivedi conducted the investigation of this case and submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant. P. W. 5, H. C. Amar Pal Singh prepared check report and registered the case against the appellant at police station Bilhour, Kanpur vide G. D. No. 36 at 7. 30 p. m. on 23-7-1990. Copy of this G. D. entry is Ex. Ka-7. 6. P. W. 5, H. C. Amar Pal Singh prepared check report and registered the case against the appellant at police station Bilhour, Kanpur vide G. D. No. 36 at 7. 30 p. m. on 23-7-1990. Copy of this G. D. entry is Ex. Ka-7. 6. In this appeal, learned amicus curie submitted that as per the medical evidence he has hardly anything to press before the Court on merit in this case. He submitted that sentence awarded to the appellant is excessive. Lesser sentence ought to have been awarded as a rule. 7. We have examined the statement of the two witnesses, the prosecutrix P. W. 2 and her father P. W. 3 ourselves. Her father was not an eye-witness. His evidence is based upon the information communicated to him by the victim. In these circumstances it is contended that it at best can be resjesta evidence as provided by Section 6 of Evidence Act, therefore, we are left with solitary testimony of the prosecutrix on the incident. Ramendra was a witness who was nominated in the F. I. R. for seeing the appellant running away from the scene of occurrence soon thereafter. He was not produced for corroboration of this fact in evidence. 8. So far as main submission of learned amicus curie that the sentence awarded to this appellant is improper is concerned, we find some force therein. If the sentence provided under Section 376 I. P. C. clause (a) to (g) of sub-section 2 is examined these offences are either punishable with imprisonment for life or a lesser sentence which shall not be less than 10 years. Fine is also necessarily to be imposed upon such a convict according to this section. He further submitted that except age of this prosecutrix being below 12 years there is no other evidence to support award of maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Law has prescribed two alternative sentences. Life term be awarded only in cases where some act by the accused other than rape accompanies the commission of the offence. It may be use of wild force, loss of power to procreate, gang rape, rape after kidnapping or abduction etc. etc. If there is no such evidence awarding the lesser punishment as envisaged by framers of law would suffice. While electing to awarding maximum penalty the Court is under an obligation to assign reasons for not awarding lesser penalty. It may be use of wild force, loss of power to procreate, gang rape, rape after kidnapping or abduction etc. etc. If there is no such evidence awarding the lesser punishment as envisaged by framers of law would suffice. While electing to awarding maximum penalty the Court is under an obligation to assign reasons for not awarding lesser penalty. Two penalties one lesser and the other very severe are not provided by the Legislature mindlessly. There is a purpose behind this. The gravity of the offence appear to be the main thought when two different punishments are envisaged. Normally, lesser penalty constitute the rule and maximum penalty will be an exception. An offence of rape committed against a child who has attained puberty or is on the threshold would be different than the same perpetrated against a child below 8 years. The same offence if committed a female child of this age will positively invite maximum penalty. The deprave mental state of such an offender will form basis for award of this penalty. 9. The contention raised before us is based upon the fact that the medical officer did not give any opinion about rape in her medical examination report. For the first time in the trial Court she came out with a statement that rape was committed. According to her this statement was based upon the extent of damage caused to the vagina. She categorically stressed that this injury could not be caused in any other manner except penetration of a male organ. Omission to state this fact in her medical report was an unconscious mistake. Apart from, it is further pointed out that the statement of the prosecutrix, who was aged about 10 or 11 years at the time of commission of the offence is full of ignorance and shows that she was positively tutored. She was unable to make any answer to many of the questions put to her by the defence Counsel. The offence according to suggestions made to her was not committed by the appellant but by Ramendra, who came in employment in the village on that very day at the farm house of Munnu Babu, where this appellant was already in employment, just on that very day. He was also a young man aged about 20-22 years. The appellant at the time of his examination under Section 313 Cr. He was also a young man aged about 20-22 years. The appellant at the time of his examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was aged about 24 years. Both of them, therefore, were young men and the defence suggestion against Ramendra ought to have been given due weight. Ramendra was named as a witness deliberately by her father. We find no force in any of these contentions. 10. The prosecutrix clearly named this appellant as the perpetrator of rape on her. She is a young innocent village girl. No animus against her for false implication of the appellant was alleged in her or her fathers cross-examination. Her innocence or ignorance or the offence cannot be given any undue weightage by this Court. She appear to us an honest witness. She narrated her horrific tale of subjugation to sex violence vividly. He statement is most natural. Appellant is a resident of her own village, therefore, any mistake in the fixation of his identity by her is remotest. The contention that she could have made a mistake in identifying the appellant, therefore, has no force. 11. It is next contended that appellant was young in the age group of 20-25, at the time of commission of this offence. There is no evidence that he was married even. He ought to be afforded an opportunity to mend himself. This long incarceration must have made him learn sufficiently. In our opinion this contention has some force and merits our consideration alongwith the aspect of awarding lesser sentence as provided in law. 12. Appellant is in jail since 3-8-1990, more than 12 years incarceration it is by now. In view of these facts and circumstances, lesser sentence provided under Section 376 (2), for the above offence, in our opinion, would meet the ends of justice. This lesser sentence as provided under Section 376 (2) is 10 years R. I. and fine. This appellant has already done 2 years more than the lesser punishment provided under the law. Except commission of rape no other violent act was disclosed by the prosecutrix against him. No external injury was found during her medical examination on other parts of her person. Thus, it did not appear a case of rape per force. It appears that she was induced. Ignorant as she was innocently she may have caved in. 13. Except commission of rape no other violent act was disclosed by the prosecutrix against him. No external injury was found during her medical examination on other parts of her person. Thus, it did not appear a case of rape per force. It appears that she was induced. Ignorant as she was innocently she may have caved in. 13. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that it shall meet the ends of justice, taking into consideration the facts adverted to above if the conviction of this appellant is maintained and his sentence be reduced to the lesser punishment provided by Section 376 (2 ). 14. The trial Court has committed an error in not imposing any fine upon the appellant. Since the trial Court has not imposed any fine and the appellant as is apparent was not in a position to engage a Counsel and file a regular appeal as he preferred a jail appeal we do not propose to impose any fine now. We provided amicus curie for conducting his appeal. His poverty is apparent and needs no further proof. Moreover, he has done two years more in jail than the sentence we propose to award. However, as a note of caution it is pointed out that in offences committed under Section 376 (2) I. P. C. apart from sentence of imprisonment, imposition of fine is also mandatory. The trial Judges are required to take note of it. 15. The appeal is partly allowed. In view of the facts discussed above, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if otherwise not wanted in any other case. Appeal partly allowed. .