JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.7.2004 passed by Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment. The appellant has further been convicted for the offence under Section 382 I.PC. and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 1.10.2002 PW-1 Sunita submitted a report Exhibit-P/1 at police station Anoopgarh, stating inter alia that on 30th September, 2002, she left her in-laws house at Hanumangarh for her parents house at 29 APD. She got down from the Bus at 30 APD. It is alleged that while she was on her way to 29 APD, appellant Hari Ram met her. He caught hold her, tied her mouth by stole and committed rape. When she proceeded towards her parents house Hari Ram, Narsi Ram and women folk of the family caught and took her along with her two children to their house. She along with her children was compelled to take bath. She was threatened not to disclose the incident otherwise she would be killed. Narsi Ram also tried to commit rape on her but she was rescued by the women folk of the family. It is further alleged that the accused appellant took away her gold chain, wrist watch, ear rings, purse and cash of Rs. 300/- . On this information, police registered a case for the offence under Section 376 and 382 I.P.C. and proceeded with investigation. The appellant was arrested on 3.10.2002. In pursuance of the information given by him, ladies-watch was recovered. Prosecutrix PW-1 Sunita was medically examined. After usual investigation police laid charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 376 and 382 I.P.C. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution adduced oral and documentary evidence to prove the charges. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the correctness of the evidence appearing against him. He further stated that he was at home when Sunita was brought by his brother Narsi Ram. The prosecution adduced oral and documentary evidence to prove the charges. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the correctness of the evidence appearing against him. He further stated that he was at home when Sunita was brought by his brother Narsi Ram. The trial court held that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and as such convicted and sentenced him in the manner noticed above. 3. Challenging the conviction, it is submitted by Mr. Manoj Garg, learned counsel for the appellant that bare reading of statement of PW-1 Sunita clearly shows that prosecution has fabricated a false story. He read before us the statement of PW-1 Sunita and pointed out that narration of the incident given by Sunita is highly improbable. Learned counsel has also 30 pointed out certain contradictions in the statement of PW-1 Sunita. Mr. Garg has made endeavour to satisfy us that PW-1 Sunita is not a reliable witness. In alternate, it is submitted that sentence awarded to the appellant is excessive. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial court. 4. We have carefully scrutinised and analysed the evidence on record and considered the rival contention. PW-1 Sunita is the victim. She is resident of 29 APD. She was married at Hanumangarh. On the date of incident, she left Hanumangarh along with her two children. She got down from the Bus at 30 APD. After staying for some time at the residence of Sarpanch Mahendra Singh, she proceeded to her parents house at 29 /APD. On the way appellant Had Ram met her. He snatched her two children and threw them away. He tied her mouth by stole. He also threw soil on the children. Thereafter, he put off his clothes. He tore her clothes and committed rape. She became unconscious. After gaining conscious, she took care of her children. She found that her ornaments i.e. ear rings, wrist watch and purse were missing. She proceeded to her parents house along with her two children. On the way, appellant's brother Narsi Ram met her, whom on enquiry, she narrated the incident. He took her and the two children to his house. Women folk of the family compelled her to take bath. They also advised her not to disclose the incident to anybody. She proceeded to her parents house along with her two children. On the way, appellant's brother Narsi Ram met her, whom on enquiry, she narrated the incident. He took her and the two children to his house. Women folk of the family compelled her to take bath. They also advised her not to disclose the incident to anybody. They also tried to convince her that they will settle the matter on return of their father from Mandi. When she did not agree to any of the suggestions, she was threatened to dire consequence, if the matter was reported to police. Somehow she managed to reach to her parents house and narrated the incident to her mother and father. The matte; was reported to the police vide Exhibit-P/1. There is a lengthy cross examination. It is pointed out by learned counsel that prosecution has not examined Mahendra Singh, at whose place the prosecutrix stayed as per her version, after getting down from the bus. It is further submitted that while she stated that her version to the effect that her children were thrown and soil was poured on them, does not find support from the statement of PW-8 Karni Singh, the investigation officer, as he has stated that no such signs were found on the scene of occurrence. 5. We have carefully considered the statements of Mst. Sunita. Mahendra Singh is not a witness of the incident. as such he was rightly not examined. Similarly, not getting trace of place where children were thrown is also not of any significance. In normal course, it is not possible to get such trace. The statement of Sunita is natural and straight forward. There is nothing to discredit her testimony. 6. PW-2 Punjab Kaur is the mother of prosecutrix Sunita. She stated that the incident was narrated by Sunita to her Similar is the statement of PW-3 Krishna Ram. Both of them stated the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged as per the narration of the incident given by Sunita. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of both the witnesses to discredit their testimony. 7. PW-7 Vipin Sharma, SHO, Police Station Anoopgarh, stated that Sunita wife of Satnam Singh along with her father Krishan Ram and mother Punjab Kaur appeared at Police Station and presented a written report vide Exhibit-P/1. On the basis of said report FI.R. vide Exhibit-P/2 was registered. 8. 7. PW-7 Vipin Sharma, SHO, Police Station Anoopgarh, stated that Sunita wife of Satnam Singh along with her father Krishan Ram and mother Punjab Kaur appeared at Police Station and presented a written report vide Exhibit-P/1. On the basis of said report FI.R. vide Exhibit-P/2 was registered. 8. PW-8 Karni Singh is the Investigating Officer. He has stated that he reached to the spot and prepared the site plan Exhibit-P/3. He has given the complete details of the investigation. He also stated that he arrested the accused appellants on 3.10.2002 vide arrest memo Exhibit-P/9. In pursuance of disclosure memo vide Exhibit-P/10, he recovered wrist watch vide Exhibit-P/11. The wrist watch was sealed and packed in the presence of Motbirs. The police also seized the underwear which the appellant was wearing at the time of the incident. There was presence of semen on the underwear. He further stated that he packed all the articles and deposited them in the Malkhana of Police Station Anoopgarh for forwarding to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 9. PW-9 Dr. Sunil Kumar has stated that he examined PW-1 Sunita on 1.10.2002 and prepared medical report vide Exhibit-P/13. He noticed 40 following injuries on her person : "There are presence of five abrasions parallel and vertical on left side of the neck. 5 x 1/4 cm size at the root of neck, nature simple-Blunt." 10. He further stated that on 4.10.2002 on the request of Police, he examined appellant Hari Ram vide Exhibit-P/15. He was found fit to perform sexual intercourse. 11. It is well settled that the conviction in a rape case can be based on the sole testimony of the Prosecutrix. Normally a woman would not make serious allegation of rape, because by such statement her very honour is put to stake. Her future become bleak. In the instant case, nothing has brought so in the cross-examination to impute any motive to falsely implicate the appellant. On the contrary, her statement is natural and straightforward. it clearly appears that the brother of the appellant and other members of the family failed in their endeavour to rest ; her from reporting the incident to 1 police. With this intention, they took PIN-1 Sunita with her two minor children to their home and tried to persuade her not to report the matter. When she did not agree, they threatened her to face dire consequences. With this intention, they took PIN-1 Sunita with her two minor children to their home and tried to persuade her not to report the matter. When she did not agree, they threatened her to face dire consequences. Evidence of the victim PW-1 Sunita has been fully corroborated by statement of PW-2 Punjab Kaur and PW-3 Krishna Ram along with First Information Report as well as medical evidence. The material on record do not indicate consent on the part of PW-1 Sunita. Thus, in our view, the trial court has rightly found the prosecution's case proved beyond reasonable doubt. 12. So far as conviction for the offence under Section 382 I.P.C. is concerned, the wrist watch was recovered in pursuance of the information given by the appellant, which has been identified by PW-1 Sunita. In view of this, the trial court rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 382 I.P.C. 13. On the question of sentence, it is of course, true that maximum sentence provided for offence u/s. 376 I.P.C. is imprisonment for life, but even for custodial or gang rape, the minimum sentence is 10 years and other normal cases 7 years rigorous imprisonment. There are no aggravated circumstances which call for sentence of L.I. or 10 years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it just and proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment for life to 7 years Imprisonment. 14. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 376 and 382 I.P.C. are maintained. The sentence of imprisonment for life awarded under Section 376 I.PC. is reduced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment. The sentence awarded under Section 382 I.P.C. does not warrant any interference. The payment of Rs. 500/- remain intact. The appellant is in jail, he will serve out the remaining part of sentence.Appeal Partly Allowed by Reducing Sentence. *******