JUDGMENT - BATTA R.K., J.:---The appellant was tried for murder of Meena, aged six years, attempt to murder Seema (P.W. 1), aged eight years, rape/attempt to rape Seema (P.W. 1), Kidnapping/abduction of Meena and Seema under sections 302, 307, 376 read with sections 511, 363 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant had pleaded not guilty. The prosecution had examined in all ten witnesses in support of the charge. The trial Court accepted the evidence of Seema (P.W. 1), Rajani (P.W. 3) and Kamalabai (P.W. 7) as also the other evidence on record including the injuries found on the person of the appellant. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of murder of Meena and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, R.I. for one year; that the appellant was guilty of attempt to murder Seema (P.W. 1) and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, R.I. for one year; that the appellant was guilty for attempt to commit rape on Seema (P.W. 1) and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, R.I. for one year; that the appellant was guilty for kidnapping under section 363 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, R.I. for nine months and the appellant was found guilty for abduction under section 364 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default R.I. for one year. The appellant was, however, acquitted under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is in jail from 9-1-1997 till the date of judgment i.e. 21-3-1998 and he was given benefit of set off under section 428 of Cri.P.C. This conviction and sentence has been challenged by the appellant in this appeal. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Vandana (P.W. 8) was married to one Macchindra and through him she delivered two daughters, namely, Meena and Seema (P.W. 1). When she used to go for work, she came in contact with the accused/appellant, who told her that he would maintain the girls Meena and Seema, will perform their marriage and will maintain her very well. The appellant took her from her village and they started residing together. When she used to go for work, she came in contact with the accused/appellant, who told her that he would maintain the girls Meena and Seema, will perform their marriage and will maintain her very well. The appellant took her from her village and they started residing together. She lived with him for about 12 months. After about one month, the accused took her daughters and sent them at village Takali to stay with their father Macchindra. On 8-1-1997, the appellant was sitting on the bridge at village Takali and at that time Rajani (P.W. 3) was passing from that side. The accused told her to call Seema (P.W. 1) because her mother had come there. She went and informed Seema (P.W. 1) and thereafter Seema (P.W. 1) and her younger sister Meena went towards the side where the accused was sitting. Kamalabai (P.W. 7) also speaks of the fact that Rajani (P.W. 3) was passing by that side and accused talked to her. Subsequently, she saw the accused going to Bhandara with two girls Seema (P.W. 1) and Meena. Seema (P.W. 1) and Meena were taken by the appellant near a well. Meena was asked to wait there. Accused took Seema (P.W. 1) near the bushes and after removing her clothes tried to rape her, but she resisted the attempt and the appellant could not succeed and brought Seema (P.W. 1) near the well, after which he first threw Meena into the well and thereafter Seema (P.W. 1). Seema (P.W. 1) raised cries, as a result of which, one woman came there and she called another person. Both of them took out Seema (P.W. 1) from well and left her in a hotel and from hotel Seema (P.W. 1) was taken to the police where she lodged the First Information Report. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant urged before us that the first link in the chain of events is provided by Rajani (P.W. 3) whose evidence cannot be believed since she has admitted in her cross-examination that she had not seen the accused on the date of the incident and that some other person had come there and that she was speaking lie at the instance of the police. In so far as the evidence of Seema (P.W. 1) is concerned, it is urged that the story put forwarded by Seema (P.W. 1) cannot be believed; that this witness has intentionally tried to implicate the accused and in the process has given many details which are not found in the F.I.R. with which she was confronted. It is further submitted that the man and the woman who are said to have rescued Seema (P.W. 1) have not been examined by the prosecution. According to him, the evidence of this witness does not at all inspire confidence and the trial Court erred in accepting her testimony. It is also urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that Seema (P.W. 1) has not at all referred or identified the accused in the course of her examination-in-chief which goes to show that the appellant had not taken her nor the appellant had committed any offence, but this witness had been tutored to depose against the appellant. In respect of witness Kamalabai (P.W. 7), it is stated that there was no specific reason for her to have noticed either the appellant or Rajani (P.W. 3) or Seema (P.W. 1) and Meena going along with the appellant and that her evidence should not have been believed. According to the learned Advocate for the appellant, once the evidence of star prosecution witness Seema (P.W. 1) is disbelieved, there is no further evidence to sustain the conviction of the appellant in the crime. 4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. urged before us that Seema (P.W. 1) was not only cross-examined at length but she could not be shaken during cross-examination. He pointed out that there are some omissions vis a vis the F.I.R. lodged by this witness, but such omissions and minor contradictions are hallmark of the truth of the prosecution case and such minor omissions and contradictions are bound to be there in the version of the child witness aged eight years, but her evidence inspires confidence and there is no reason whatsoever to discard her testimony. He also urged before us that the trial Court has accepted the evidence of Rajani (P.W. 3) and Kamalabai (P.W. 7) and there is no reason whatsoever to discard their testimony. He also urged before us that the trial Court has accepted the evidence of Rajani (P.W. 3) and Kamalabai (P.W. 7) and there is no reason whatsoever to discard their testimony. He also pointed out that the prosecution case gets further support from the injuries found on the person of the accused/appellant as also recovery of clothes, namely frock and chaddi produced by the appellant vide panchanama (Exh. 39). He, therefore, contends that the evidence of the prosecution has been examined in the correct perspective in the light of the principles of appreciation of evidence applicable in that behalf and the prosecution case had been duly established. He, therefore, submits that no interference is called for in the matter. 5. Vandana (P.W. 8) was married to one Macchindra and through him, she had two daughters, namely deceased Meena and Seema (P.W. 1). When she used to go for work, she came in contact with the appellant, who told her that he would maintain the girls Meena and Seema (P.W. 1), will perform their marriage and will maintain her very well. The appellant/accused took her as also Seema (P.W. 1) and Meena along with him. After about a month, the appellant sent Seema (P.W. 1) and Meena at their village Takali to stay with their father Macchindra. Vandana (P.W. 8) continued to stay with the appellant for about 12 months. It appears that even when the said girls were staying along with the appellant, he started feeling the pinch and he was telling Vandana (P.W. 8) that the girls were eating too much and should be sent to their father. Vandana (P.W. 8) in fact, wanted to see her daughters, but the appellant did not permit her to do so. 6. On 8-1-1997, the appellant came to Takali and took away deceased Meena and Seema (P.W. 1) on the pretext that their mother had come. Rajani (P.W. 3) has stated that the appellant was sitting on the bridge. He called her and asked her whether she knew Seema (P.W. 1). When she replied in affirmative, the appellant told her to call Seema (P.W. 1) because her mother had come there and she accordingly called Seema (P.W. 1) by stating that her mother had come there. She further stated that Seema (P.W. 1) and her younger sister Meena went towards the accused. When she replied in affirmative, the appellant told her to call Seema (P.W. 1) because her mother had come there and she accordingly called Seema (P.W. 1) by stating that her mother had come there. She further stated that Seema (P.W. 1) and her younger sister Meena went towards the accused. In the cross-examination, she stated that the bus stand where the accused was sitting had a pan thela besides other pan thelas. The bridge is near pan thela. She reiterates in the cross-examination that the accused told her that the mother of Seema (P.W. 1) had come who is sitting near pan thela and she should call her. She has further stated that she did not go to see Seema's mother near pan thela. She communicated the message of the accused and immediately returned to her house. Learned Counsel for the appellant heavily relied upon the last two sentences in the cross-examination which are in the nature of trapping questions and this witness has been trapped to give such answers. These answers cannot be read in isolation and have to be read in context in the light of the whole of the testimony of this witness. Except for the last two sentences, the witness has repeatedly stated that it was the accused who had told her to inform Seema (P.W. 1) that her mother had come to see her and to send her. Therefore, not much importance in the context can be given to the last two answers which are pursuant to a trapping questions put to a child witness. At any rate, both, Kamalabai (P.W. 7) and Seema (P.W. 1) have corroborated the version of Rajani (P.W. 3). Kamalabai (P.W. 7) has stated that she used to sell chane and murmure and on that day she was sitting near the shop. She saw the accused and also saw one Rajani (P.W. 3) coming and the accused talking to her. Of course she has stated that what the accused had talked to her she did not know. Thereafter, Rajani (P.W. 3) went to her house. After some time she saw that the accused was going with two girls, namely, Seema (P.W. 1) and Meena, who are the daughters of Macchindra. She identified the accused as the same person who took the said girls. Thereafter, Rajani (P.W. 3) went to her house. After some time she saw that the accused was going with two girls, namely, Seema (P.W. 1) and Meena, who are the daughters of Macchindra. She identified the accused as the same person who took the said girls. The testimony of this witness could not be shaken at all in the cross-examination and she has stood the test of identification. There is no reason whatsoever to discard her testimony. 7. Seema (P.W. 1) is the star witness of the prosecution who was about eight years old at the time of her deposition. She was about seven years at the time of the incident. The trial Judge had satisfied about the competency of the child witness to depose and after he was satisfied, he recorded the statement of child witness Seema (P.W. 1). She has stated that her father's name is Macchindra and mother's name is Vandana; that her mother had married with the person who is her second husband. One Rajani (P.W. 3) came and told her that her new father is calling. Accordingly, she along with Meena went towards the bridge. According to her, the new person was standing near the bridge. She has stated that she knew the new person because she had stayed with him for one or two months. Her evidence is supported by Vandana (P.W. 8) who has stated that Meena and Seema (P.W. 1) had stayed along with her and the accused for about one month. The said new person told her that her Mummy has come there. Thereafter, the said new person took them and ultimately they reached near one well. The said new person kept her sister Meena near the well and took her near the bushes. There he removed her frock and tried to remove her chaddi, but she raised cries and also resisted the attempt. Of course, she has also stated that the accused fell down on her body and tried to thrust his penis in her private part. This part of her deposition has been disbelieved on the ground that the same has not been disclosed in the F.I.R. Thereafter, the appellant brought Seema (P.W. 1) near the well. The appellant threw Meena and Seema (P.W. 1) into the well. This part of her deposition has been disbelieved on the ground that the same has not been disclosed in the F.I.R. Thereafter, the appellant brought Seema (P.W. 1) near the well. The appellant threw Meena and Seema (P.W. 1) into the well. Meena drowned in the well, but Seema (P.W. 1) was able to catch hold one iron rod in the well and started shouting. In the meantime, the appellant had run away. One woman came near the well on hearing the cries and she brought another person. Seema (P.W. 1) was taken out of the well. The said person and woman left her near Octroi Naka in a hotel and they went away. The said person and woman have not been examined by the prosecution, but it appears that they had left after leaving Seema (P.W. 1) in the hotel and possibly could not be traced. The non-examination of the said person in the light of the categorical statement of Seema (P.W. 1) does not have any material effect on the prosecution case. This witness was cross-examined at length. The cross-examination was searching in nature, but this witness stood her ground and could not be shaken at all during cross-examination, except for some omissions here and there which are bound to be there in case of all witnesses. She stated in cross-examination that they had stayed with the appellant for some time and after that they lived at Takali with their father Macchindra. One of the omissions is relating to her statement that the appellant took two three rounds to her house and the other omission was relating to the fact that she had not stated in the F.I.R. that the appellant had pressed her mouth and the neck of her sister. These are minor omissions taking into account that Seema (P.W. 1) is a child witness of about eight years. It is no doubt true that this witness had also tried to give details of attempt to rape including that the appellant tried to insert his penis forcibly into her private part. There was, however, omnibus confrontation, part of which is found in the statement of this witness and part of which was not there. It is no doubt true that this witness had also tried to give details of attempt to rape including that the appellant tried to insert his penis forcibly into her private part. There was, however, omnibus confrontation, part of which is found in the statement of this witness and part of which was not there. Her statement that the accused had removed her frock and chaddi and he fell her down is very much there in the F.I.R. though the fact that the appellant tried to insert his penis into her private part is not there. She reiterated in cross-examination that the appellant first threw her sister Meena into the well and then he threw her in the well. She has further stated that she was shouting for 15 to 20 minutes continuously and she was rescued by one woman and a man. We do not find any reason whatsoever to disbelieve the categorical statement of this witness who very well knew the appellant/accused prior to the incident and she had stayed with him for about a month prior to the incident. The prosecution had examined Doctor (P.W. 5) who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Meena which was recovered by the police from the well. Doctor (P.W. 5) had conducted post-mortem on dead body on 9-1-1997. According to him, the cause of death due to asphyxia on account of drowning. He further stated that by throwing her in the well the death could be resulted. According to him, the death was caused more than 12 hours but less than 24 hours, which corroborates the time of the incident according to the prosecution. The prosecution have also examined Dr. Dattatraya Trivedi (P.W. 4) who had examined the accused on 10-1-1997. He found irregular abrasion injuries on right and left dorsome 0.1 cm to 1 cm in diameter which are irregular in nature. The injuries were 48 hours old, which again corroborates the prosecution case relating to the time of incident. According to Dr. Dattatraya Trivedi (P.W. 4), injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and may be possible by nails also. In cross-examination, he stated that the abrasions could be self inflicted by nails. The injuries were 48 hours old, which again corroborates the prosecution case relating to the time of incident. According to Dr. Dattatraya Trivedi (P.W. 4), injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and may be possible by nails also. In cross-examination, he stated that the abrasions could be self inflicted by nails. It is however pertinent at this stage to note that the accused in his statement under section 313 of Cri.P.C. in answer to Question No. 37, has totally denied the presence of any injury on his person. The accused has thus taken a false defence that he was no injured in the course of the incident. It is now well settled that false defence is an additional link to connect the appellant with the crime. The presence of injuries on the person of the appellant further strengthens the prosecution case and points out to the involvement of the appellant in the crime inasmuch as Seema (P.W. 1) has categorically stated that she has resisted the attempt made by the appellant to rape her after removing her frock and chaddi. The frock and chaddi were recovered by the police under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act at the instance of the appellant under panchanama (Exh. 39). In this respect, evidence of panch, Namdeo Nandurkar (P.W. 9) has been recorded, who has stated that the accused took them near the nullah and produced clothes, namely, frock and chaddi and panchanama (Exh. 39) was prepared. During the cross-examination, it has been recorded that he could not tell any reason as to why it is not written in panchanama about the clothes. This fact is not correctly reflected in the deposition of panch (P.W. 9) since in the panchanama (Exh. 39) under which the clothes were recovered, there is a clear reference to the recovery of the said clothes. 8. In the light of the evidence on record, we find that no case has been made out for interference and the judgment of the trial Court is not only well founded but based upon the evidence on record. Nevertheless, we find that the sentence in default of payment of fine is rather very harsh and for default in payment of fine of Rs. Nevertheless, we find that the sentence in default of payment of fine is rather very harsh and for default in payment of fine of Rs. 500/- under give counts, R.I. for one year under four counts and on one count, R.I. for nine months has been awarded, which means that for non payment of fine of Rs. 2,500/-, the appellant shall have to undergo R.I. for four years and nine months. In our opinion, in default of payment of fine, the sentence is required to be reduced under each of the five counts to R.I. for one month. In other words, in default of total payment of fine of Rs. 2,500/- the appellant shall undergo total simple imprisonment for five months. Besides this also, we find that the sentence awarded under section 376 read with section 511 of I.P.C. is ten years. For attempt to rape, the sentence provided under section 511 of I.P.C. can extend up to one-half of the imprisonment for life or one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence. In the circumstance, the sentence under section 376 read with section 511 of I.P.C. is reduced from ten years' to five years. Likewise, we find that the sentence for attempt to murder is also on higher side and excessive. The sentence thereunder also is reduced from ten years' R.I. to five years' R.I. Likewise, the sentence imposed under section 364 of I.P.C. is also excessive and as such it is reduced from ten years' R.I. to five years' R.I. Substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The appeal is dismissed except for the modifications in the substantive sentences and sentences in default of payment of fine to the extent mentioned above. Appeal dismissed. -----