JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Karamvir son of Prithvi was convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide impugned judgment dated 5.9.1990 under section 376 Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months. 2. The occurrence is of the year 1989. Kumari Veena is the prosecutrix in this case. On the date of incident, she was of the age of nine years. She on 6.8.1989 at about 6 PM had gone in the area of Karan Tale Karnal to have a swing in the Jhoola there alongwith Shashi and Osian. Shashi was of the age of six years and Osian was of the age of four years at that time. When all the three children did not return, Nanak Chand father of Veena went for the search alongwith his wife Pushpa and his sister Shakuntla mother of Shashi and Osian and when they reached near the gate of Ram Lila ground at about 9 PM, all the three children were found coming weeping. On inquiry Veena disclosed that Karam Vir son of Prithvi who was their neighbour, in fact, had taken all the them at Ram Lila ground by giving them an allurement of eatables and there he forcibly had sexual intercourse with her (Veena) after removing her underwear. Nanak Chand then went to the police post Sadar Bazar Karnal alongwith Kumari Veena and made his statement Ex. PFF before SI Narpat Singh PW8. Thereafter on the basis of the endorsement made by SI Narpat Singh, the formal FIR Ex. PFF/1 was registered in the Police Station City Karnal by ASI Sitar Singh PW7. Kumari Veena was examined by Dr. Veena Katyal PW1 on 7.8.1989 and the doctor found that hymen was lacerated having radiate tears and the margins of the said tears were swollen. They were red and were bleeding on touch. One finger could be inserted in the vagina under anesthesia. Ex. PB is the report. Karam Vir was also examined on 6.8.89 itself as he was arrested on the same day and Dr. Anil Sharma PW2 found certain injuries on his person and he gave the opinion that there was nothing to suggest that he was not capable of performing sexual intercourse. Ex.PD is the report in this respect. 3. Ex. PB is the report. Karam Vir was also examined on 6.8.89 itself as he was arrested on the same day and Dr. Anil Sharma PW2 found certain injuries on his person and he gave the opinion that there was nothing to suggest that he was not capable of performing sexual intercourse. Ex.PD is the report in this respect. 3. So far as the age of Veena prosecutrix is concerned, it is proved by school certificate Ex. PF to the effect that her date of birth is 4.6.1980. The same is proved by Atam Parkash PW4. 4. Report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban Ex. PN revealed that the underwear and frock of the prosecutrix were having brownish stains at places and certain brownish smears were also noticed on the vaginal slides. 5. The appellant after the completion of the investigation, was challaned for the offence punishable under section 376 Indian Penal Code. He was accordingly charged by the learned trial Court. After appreciating the entire evidence the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as stated above. Hence, this appeal. 6. I have heard Mr. Ashit Malik, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. With their assistance, I have also gone through the entire record. 7. Mr. Malik has not assailed the impugned judgment on merits and has prayed for leniency in quantum of sentence by way of mercy. Strengthening his arguments in this respect, the learned counsel contends that at the time of alleged occurrence, the appellant was of the age of hardly 19 years and after his sentence was suspended by this Court, he got married and is presently living with his wife and three minor children. He then contends that out of these three children two are minor daughters of the age of six years and five months and two years and the son of the age of about three years and a few months. He then contends that the wife of the appellant is presently carrying the pregnancy of eight months; the appellant lost his father and his old mother is also dependent upon him; in case the appellant is sent to Jail once again, in his absence there will be nobody to look after his mother, his pregnant wife and three minor children. He then contends that the wife of the appellant is presently carrying the pregnancy of eight months; the appellant lost his father and his old mother is also dependent upon him; in case the appellant is sent to Jail once again, in his absence there will be nobody to look after his mother, his pregnant wife and three minor children. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relies upon Annexures P/1 to P/4 (ordered to be taken on record vide Criminal Misc. No. 33062-M of 2003). The learned counsel on the basis of the instructions of his client then states that even Veena the prosecutrix who was of the age of nine years in the year 1989 has by now got married and is well settled. 8. Basing his arguments on the above said submissions, the learned counsel prays for lenient view in the quantum of sentence. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Bhardwaj vehemently contends that the appellant does not deserve any leniency as he had committed a heinous offence of rape with a minor girl of nine years and his substantive sentence deserves to be confirmed as it is. 10. In State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1470 their Lordships of the Apex Court while dealing with the sentence part under section 376(2) Indian Penal Code have observed in para No. 11 of the judgment as under :- "11. A persual of the above provision shows that the legislative mandate is to impose a sentence, for the offence of rape on a girl under 12 years of age, for a term which shall not be less than 10 years, but, it may extend to life and also to fine. The proviso to Section 376(2) Indian Penal Code of course, lays down that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than 10 years. Thus, the normal sentence in a case where rape is committed on a child below 12 years of ago, is not less than 10 years R.I. though in exceptional cases "for special and adequate reasons" sentence of less than 11 years R.I. can also be awarded. Thus, the normal sentence in a case where rape is committed on a child below 12 years of ago, is not less than 10 years R.I. though in exceptional cases "for special and adequate reasons" sentence of less than 11 years R.I. can also be awarded. It is a fundamental rule of construction that a proviso must be considered with relation to the principal matter to which it stands as a proviso particularly in such like penal provisions. The Courts are obliged to respect the legislative mandate in the matter of awarding of sentence in all such cases. Recourse to the proviso can be had only for "special and adequate reasons" and not in a casual manner. When there exist any "special and adequate reasons" would depend upon a variety of factors and the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in that behalf of universal application." 11. No doubt child rape cases are cases of perverse lust for sex but while dealing with sentence part, variety of factors and the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case have to be kept in mind as held in Krishnappas case (supra) that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this respect. As stated above by learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of the documentary evidence that the appellant is having three minor children of the tender age; widowed mother to be looked after; and beside this the wife of the appellant is also carrying the pregnancy of eight months, in my view the appellant is entitled to some lenient view, may be by way of mercy. Another fact which cannot be lost sight is that the prosecutrix at the time of alleged incident was of the age of nine years and by now she has attained the age of 23 years. As stated she has also got married by now. This material aspect can also be considered as one of the adequate and special reasons to impose the sentence less than the one prescribed as minimum. As stated she has also got married by now. This material aspect can also be considered as one of the adequate and special reasons to impose the sentence less than the one prescribed as minimum. It would not be out of place to mention here that the learned trial court itself keeping in view the age of the appellant at the time of commission of offence and considering that he was not mature enough at that time has awarded the imprisonment for a period of seven years instead of minimum of 10 years. This in other way indicates that some leniency has also been shown by the trial court itself. 12. My view is fortified by judgment of this Court rendered in Balraj alias Bala v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 62-SB of 1989 decided on May 8, 2003. In the said case, the accused was of the age of 18 years at the time of incident which took place 15 years ago and the victim (prosecution) was of four years. The minimum sentence of 10 years was reduced to seven years. 13. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my view the ends of justice would be adequately met if the substantive sentence of seven years already awarded by the trial Court is reduced to four years. However, the sentence of fine shall remain the same. It is ordered accordingly. 14. Except in the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present appeal is dismissed. 15. Necessary steps shall be taken at once to take the appellant in custody to serve out his remaining part of substantive sentence. Appeal dismissed.