Judgment I.P.Singh and Mridula Mishra JJ. 1. Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both the appellants have been convicted under sections 376(2)(f) and 377 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under each count with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. However, both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 22.6.1997 at 10.30 P.M. the victim girl Anjani Kumari, aged about 11 years was sleeping beside her father on a Chowki in front of her tea shop near Paharpur station. In the night when she woke up she found that two persons were carrying her away. In the moonlit she identified both of them as the present appellants, she raised alarm and asked them why they were taking her away. Both of the appellants took her to a partly built unoccupied house and threw her on the ground and committed rape on her one by one resulting in profused bleeding from her private part. When the appellants were not satisfied with this and finding her private part bleeding they went to the extent of having carnal intercourse with her one by one. She was threatened that if she would disclose about this incident to anybody, her father would be killed. Thereafter the appellants went away and she came to her father at 1.30 A.M. and narrated about the occurrence to him. The victim Anjani Kumari (informant) went to the P.S. along with her father and gave her Fardbeyan to the Officer-in-charge, Fatehpur Police Station on the basis of which F.I.R. was drawn up and Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 49/97 dated 23.6.97 at 5.30 A.M under sections 376 and 377/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken. Thereafter the case was committed to the court of sessions and ultimately the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. 4. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellants in both these appeals has submitted that he does not want to challenge the order of conviction of the appellants and will not argue on the merits of the cases. He will only make his submissions on the point of the question of sentence. 4. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellants in both these appeals has submitted that he does not want to challenge the order of conviction of the appellants and will not argue on the merits of the cases. He will only make his submissions on the point of the question of sentence. It has been submitted that the sentence of life imprisonment is too harsh under the aforesaid sections in which maximum sentence is rigorous imprisonment for 10 years only. The appellants are in custody since last seven years and they have suffered mental torture of protractive trial. Under the facts and circumstances it has been prayed that sentence may be reduced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. Learned counsel for the State and informant have vehemently opposed this prayer. 5. From perusal of the prosecution case and allegations made therein we do not find any mitigating circumstance. In this case the allegations are severe. The girl below 11 years of age was sleeping in her house where her father was also present. The appellants, as alleged, came and lifted the girl and took her to a secluded place and committed rape on her one by one. Learned counsel for the appellants prays that the sentences imposed on the appellants may be reduced to the minimum sentence. The allegations are too serious and they do not call for any leniency. We, under the facts and circumstances of the case are not satisfied. The appellants not only committed rape on the victim girl but carnal intercourse also. This conduct of the appellants was savage inhuman, beastly and barbarous specially when the victim was a girl of tender age of 11 years. As such, we do not think that this is a fit case to extend leniency. 6. It is difficult to imagine that grown up people like these appellants will commit such type of offence, as alleged. Their conduct does not call far any leniency. Prayer of the learned counsel for the appellants is rejected. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned court below are hereby confirmed and these appeals are dismissed.