ORDER 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. The accused was charged for having sexually assaulted one Krishnabai, a minor aged about 14 years against her wish and consent and was tried for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 c of the Penal Code. According to the case of the prosecution when Krishnabai was alone in her house, her parents having gone to Village Panwana, the respondent went to the said house and on learning from her that her father was not at home, closed the door of the house from inside and committed rape on her. The Sessions Court, on appreciation of evidence convicted the accused for the aforesaid. offences. On the aspect of sentence after noticing d that a minor girl was subjected to sexual assault on finding her alone, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the respondent-accused was not entitled to a lenient attitude and accordingly for offence under Section 376 the accused was punished with 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs 5000 and on failure to deposit the fine he was directed to undergo further one years rigorous imprisonment. 4. In the appeal, the finding of conviction for the aforesaid offences was not challenged. The only prayer made was for reduction of sentence. The High Court, by the impugned judgment and order, reduced the sentence for the period already undergone, namely, 5 years, 4 months and 14 days. The reasons for reducing the sentence as given in the impugned judgment and f order are as follows: "Appellant Bane Singh is illiterate labourer from rural area, who was aged 20 years at the time of incident, threrefore, it appears to be a fit case to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone." 5. Learned counsel for the accused made a feeble attempt to urge that 9 even the conviction of the respondent was unwarranted. Without going into the question whether it is open for the respondent to challenge the conviction, the same not having been challenged before the High Court, we have, with the assistance of learned counsel for the respondent, perused the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. We find no infirmity in the finding of conviction rendered by the learned Judge. 6. We find no infirmity in the finding of conviction rendered by the learned Judge. 6. To say the least, the aforesaid grounds of the accused being either an illiterate labourer or from the rural area or being of an age of 20 years at the time of the incident are wholly irrelevant for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone particularly having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner of its commission. The victim was a minor aged 14 years, she was helpless being alone at her house. The accused, taking advantage of the situation, committed the crime and the learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case rightly came to the conclusion that he deserved no leniency. The approach of the High Court lacked sensitivity towards the minor victim. We may make useful reference to a recent decision of this Court in State of M.P. v. Balul where in almost similar circumstances, the order of the High Court was set aside and that of the Sessions Court restored. 7. In the present case the Sessions Court having imposed on the respondent rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years, we see no ground to reduce it to a period of seven years as was sought to be contended by learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that in the case of Balul the sentence awarded was seven years. In that case, by setting aside the order of the High Court, the sentence awarded by the trial court was restored. It is a different question that the trial court in Balu easel has sentenced the accused for a period of seven years, but, that was on the facts and circumstances of the said case. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and restore that of the Additional Sessions Judge. 9. The appeal is allowed accordingly.