J. M. MALIK, J. ( 1 ) LEARNED Trial Court handed down the verdict of guilty against the appellant for having raped ten months old child on 25. 1. 1999 in House No. . RZ 76, Dabri extension. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- failing which he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved by that order, the present appeal has been preferred. ( 2 ) ADUMBRATED in brief, the case of the prosecution is that PW Mamta went to take a bath, leaving her ten months' old daughter on a cot outside her room. Her attention got attracted by the cries raised by her child. She came out and found that she was being ravished by the accused. Her daughter was found bleeding profusely. The police was called. The accused was beaten by the crowd collected there. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant did not pick up a conflict with the abovesaid facts. I have also marshalled the evidence on record. Smt. Mamta, mother of the prosecutrix has gone the whole hog with the prosecution. Her case is corroborated by PW Om Wati, who was living in front of her house. She also got attracted by the cries, went to the spot and the accused was nailed in her presence. She also saw that the accused was lying by the side of the prosecutrix Km. Kavita. She further deposed that the appellant tried to liberate himself but could not succeed. Both of them identified the accused in the Court. ( 4 ) THE case of the prosecutrix is further corroborated by the medical evidence pertaining to the prosecutrix, proved as PW-6/da which reveals that Km. Kavita received the following injuries, small laceration on vestibule poesterly, Hymen Torn etc. The Medical certificate of the appellant, pw-8/a goes to show that the accused was having one centimeter scar on the right forehead and one centimeter into one centimeter scar on the left hypochondrium. The injuries received by him clearly establish his complicity in the crime. The Investigating officer, Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary, testified that appellant was got admitted in the hospital by pcr people. Hospital authorities discharged him and thereafter he formally arrested him. ( 5 ) MOREOVER, defence version is meritless, meretricious and mendacious. The injuries received by him clearly establish his complicity in the crime. The Investigating officer, Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary, testified that appellant was got admitted in the hospital by pcr people. Hospital authorities discharged him and thereafter he formally arrested him. ( 5 ) MOREOVER, defence version is meritless, meretricious and mendacious. He explained that Mamta came to his factory with 4 and 5 persons who gave beating to him. He further explained that since he fell unconscious, therefore, he did not know who were those 4/5 persons. In her cross-examination, PW mamta denied that her daughter had fallen on a construction site and thereby received injuries. On the other hand, Dr. Upma Saxena, pw6, stated that from the Laceration and torn hymen she was of the opinion there was a penetration in the vagina of the child. She categorically denied that hymen was torn due to fall in this particular case. To my mind, the case against the appellant stands proved without ifs and buts. ( 6 ) THE only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appellant has already undergone seven years and nine months. He is the only bread earner of his family and as such he should be released on the imprisonment already undergone. ( 7 ) I see no merit in this argument. The maximum sentence prescribed for such like offences is life imprisonment. The learned trial court has already taken a lenient view against the appellant. In a recent authorit reported in State of Himachal Pradesh vs asha Ram AIR 2006 Supreme Court 381, the father had raped his minor daughter. The apex court altered and enhanced the sentence from five years' rigorous imprisonment to imprisonment for life. The apex court also observed: "having said so, regarding sentence we are tempted to quote the observation of Justice Pandian in the case of Madan gopal Kakkad Vs. Naval Dubey, 1992 air SCW 1480, where it has been observed that "judges who bear the sword of Justice should not hesitate to use that sword with the utmost severity, to the full and to the end if the gravity of the offences so demand. " ( 8 ) IN another case reported in State of madhya Pradesh vs. Santosh Kumar AIR 2006 supreme Court 2648, 6 years old child was raped. The apex court enhanced the sentence to ten years. " ( 8 ) IN another case reported in State of madhya Pradesh vs. Santosh Kumar AIR 2006 supreme Court 2648, 6 years old child was raped. The apex court enhanced the sentence to ten years. The appeal is without merit and dismissed.