Judgment :- This appeal has been preferred by the accused in S.C.No.155 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chidambaram,Cuddalore District. 2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 29. 2002 between 8.00p.m., and 10.30p.m., the accused had lift the victim girl aged 12 to the field of one Pandurangan and committed the offence of rape. Copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Parankipettai who had committed the case under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the case is triable only by a Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge,Chidambaram on appearance of the accused had framed charge against the accused under Section 376 of IPC and when questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty. 3. On the side of the Prosecution , P.Ws 1 to 16 were examined. Exs P1 to P16 were exhibited and M.Os 1to 4 were marked. 4. P.W.1 is the father of the victim girl. According to him, on the date of occurrence, while he was sleeping on the pial of his house along with his daughter(P.W.2) the victim, another daughter Priya, his father, his wife P.W.3 and his sisters son Kumar P.W.4 and at 10 O clock , when he woke up, found her daughter missing and on search he could find her daughter lying on the ground in a nude posture with injuries on the face, chin, mouth and neck and the girls was found in a semi unconscious stage and there was bleeding from her genetilia . Immediately he removed her daughter to Government Hospital, Chidambaram and to the Doctor, he informed the injuries might have been caused due to dogs bite. The next day,there were panchayat in which P.W.6,P.W.11 Jayaraman and Shanmugam called the accused and enquired, before whom the accused had admitted for having committed the offence and that on the next day at about 12 noon, he preferred a complaint with the police and had also produced the Lungi worn by the accused and inskirt used by his daughter. Ex P1 is the complaint preferred by him. M.O.1 is the inskirt of his daughter. M.O.2 is the lungi belonged to the accused .Ex P2 is Form 95 under which M.O.1 and M.O.2 were sent to the Court. 4a. Ex P1 is the complaint preferred by him. M.O.1 is the inskirt of his daughter. M.O.2 is the lungi belonged to the accused .Ex P2 is Form 95 under which M.O.1 and M.O.2 were sent to the Court. 4a. P.W.2 is the victim girl aged about nine years at the time of deposition before the Court. She would depose that on the date of occurrence, she was sleeping along with her father, mother, sisters, grand father and paternal uncle Kumar and that the accused under pretext of offering chocolate lift her to the nearby sugarcane garden and had committed the offence of rape and that she became unconscious and only in the hospital where she admitted for treatment, she regained her conscious and that her father has preferred the complaint. 4b. p.W.3 is the mother of P.W.2 and the wife of P.W.1. She has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and would depose that when she saw P.W2 after the occurrence, she noticed injuries on the lips, chin, and neck and genetilia of the victim girl P.W.2 and that at that time she does not know the cause for the injury on P.w.2. She informed the doctor that the injuries on P.W.2 may be due to Dogs bite and that inskirt of her daughter and the blood stained lungi of the accused were recovered by the panchayatars in the panchayat held on the next day. Since the panchayat could not be fructified , the panchayatars instructed P.W 1 her husband to prefer a complaint with the police who had handed over the blood stained lungi of the accused as well as the inskirt of her daughter to the police. 4c. P.W.4 is one Kumar, the paternal uncle of P.W.2. He would corroborate the evidence of P.W.1,P.W.2, P.W.3 to the effect that on the date of occurrence i.e., on s29. 2002 at about 8.00p.m., he was sleeping with P.W.1,P.W.2, P.W.3, his grand father and aunt on the pial of the house . After hearing hue and cry raised by the other witnesses, he also woke up and saw P.W.2 lying near the land without any wearing apparels on her body and that he could see the injuries on the face of P.W.2. On the next day before the Panchayat , the accused had admitted the offence and that P.W.1 has preferred the complaint on 29. 2002 at about 12 noon. 4d. On the next day before the Panchayat , the accused had admitted the offence and that P.W.1 has preferred the complaint on 29. 2002 at about 12 noon. 4d. P.W.5 is the grand father of P.W.2 who has also corroborated the evidence of other witnesses viz., P.W.1, P.W.2,P.W.3,P.W.4 to the effect that on the previous night to the date of occurrence, he was also sleeping on the pial along with other witnesses including the victim girl. 4e. P.W.6 has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.w.7 is not an eye witness. P.W.8 has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.9 would depose that before the panchayat the accused had admitted his guilt. P.W.10 would corroborate the evidence of P.W.9 to the fact that the accused had admitted the offence before the panchayatars. He has also signed as witness in Ex P2 form 95. 4f. P.W.15 is the then Head Constable of Buvanagiri Police Station who had registered the case under Buvanagiri Police Station crime No.336 of 2002 under Section 376 of IPC on the basis of the complaint preferred by P.W.1. Ex P8 is the first information report. P.W.16 is the Investigating Officer who had visited the place of occurrence on 29. 2002 at about 13.15 hours and had prepared Ex P3 observation mahazar in the presence of P.W11 and P.W.12. He has also recovered M.O.3, blood stained sand and M.O.4 sample sand under Ex P4 mahazar in the presence of P.W.11 and P.W.12. 4g. P.W.13 is the doctor who had examined the victim girl on 10. 2002 at about 1.35 p.m Ex P5 is the wound certificate issued by him to the injuries sustained by P.W.2. P.W.14 is the lady doctor who had examined P.W.2 on 10. 2002 at about 6.45p.m., The doctor has deposed that she could see human bite mark on the left cheek of the victim girl and also could see two bite marks on the upper lip and also around the neck of the victim. The doctor had also seen nail marks on the nap, on the back and also on the right armpit. Her definite evidence is that hymen of the victim girl was found ruptured. Ex P6 is the wound certificate issued by P.W.13.The accused was also examined by Doctor Prabu. Ex P7 is the certificate issued by him stating that the accused was potent. Her definite evidence is that hymen of the victim girl was found ruptured. Ex P6 is the wound certificate issued by P.W.13.The accused was also examined by Doctor Prabu. Ex P7 is the certificate issued by him stating that the accused was potent. Since Dr.Prabu was not available, Ex P7 certificate was marked through P.w.14 who is well versed with the signature of Dr.Prabu. 4h. P.W.16 has examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He has arrested the accused and has recorded the confession statement and after arrested the accused and produced before the Magistrate for Judicial remand. After completing the formalities, he has filed the charge sheet against the accused under Section 376 of IPC on 212. 2002. 5. When incriminating circumstances under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were put to the accused, he would deny his complicity with the crime. He would further state that while he was taking his meals in the houe about five or six persons took him to the panchayat and also informed about the occurrence and insisted him to admit the offence and also offered Rs.50,000/-, if he admits the offence to which course he was not amenable. He would further admit that he was beaten with stick and broom stick. He would further narrate the cruelty , he met at the hands of the panchayatars. 6. On the above evidence, the learned trial Judge has come to a conclusion that the charge levelled against the accused under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence. The learned trial Judge has also directed that out of the fine amount, the entire amount of Rs.10,000/- is to be given as compensation to P.W.2 the victim girl under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C.. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, the accused has preferred this appeal. 7. Now the point for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction and sentence of the learned trial Judge against the accused under Section376(2)(f) of IPC is sustainable in law for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal? 8. Heard Mr.R.Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.V.R. Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully considered their rival submissions. 8. Heard Mr.R.Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.V.R. Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully considered their rival submissions. 9 The Point: Mr.R.Balakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would take me to the entire evidence let in by the prosecution and also point out the discrepancy found in the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and other witnesses. The learned counsel would focus the attention of this Court to the discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.1 which was also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.13, the doctor. After the occurrence, admittedly the victim girl was taken to Government Hospital, Cuddalore. Before the Doctor, P.W.1 the father of the victim P.w.2 who is the complainant in this case had informed that his daughter P.W.2 had sustained injuries due to dogs bite. P.W.13 the doctor who had examined P.W.2 would also depose to the fact that at the time of admission in the hospital by P.W.1, he(P.W.13) was informed by P.W.1 that the victim girl had sustained injuries due to dogs bite. But he would depose in the cross examination itself that the victims father P.W1 has informed him that the injuries caused to P.W.2 was by a human being . The charge levelled against the accused is that he had committed the offence of rape. P.W.14 is the lady doctor who had examined the victim girl to show whether she had subjected to the offence of rape would categorically depose that P.W.2 the victim girl was subjected to the offence of rape by saying that her hymen was not in tact and there were nail marks and human bite marks seen on the left cheek, upper lip and also around the neck. 10. So under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the offence of rape was not committed by a human being but by any animal. The injuries found on the body of P.W.2 was only made due to human bite and not due to dogs bite. So the discrepancy found in the evidence of P.W.1 cannot in no way affect the case of the prosecution. The injuries found on the body of P.W.2 was only made due to human bite and not due to dogs bite. So the discrepancy found in the evidence of P.W.1 cannot in no way affect the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.2, the victim girl corroborated by the evidence of P.W.14, the doctor and the evidence of Panchayatars P.W.5 and P.W.7 before whom the accused had admitted the guilt will go to show that an offence under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC has been attracted against the accused as rightly held by the learned trial judge. 11. When coming to the question of sentence, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the accused is aged only 20 at the time of committing the offence and while sentencing him , some leniency may be shown on him. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relying on a decision reported in Dinesh Alias Buddha-v- State of Rajasthan (2006)2 SCC(cri)1) wherein the accused said to have committed an offence of rape of a child aged below 12 years was awarded life imprisonment by the High Court of Rajasthan. On appeal, the Honourable Apex Court while reducing the sentence of life to that of ten years rigorous imprisonment has observed as follows. "Corroboration is not the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. The observations of Justice Vivian Bose, in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan were (SCR p.386). "The rule , which according to the cases has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it , must be present to the mind of the Judge. . . . ." The measure of punishment in a case of rape cannot depend upon the social status of the victim or the accused. It must depend upon the conduct of the accused, the state and the age of the sexually assaulted female and the gravity of the criminal act. Crimes of violence upon women need to be severely dealt with. The socio-economic status, religion, race, caste or creed of the accused or the victim are irrelevant considerations in sentencing policy. It must depend upon the conduct of the accused, the state and the age of the sexually assaulted female and the gravity of the criminal act. Crimes of violence upon women need to be severely dealt with. The socio-economic status, religion, race, caste or creed of the accused or the victim are irrelevant considerations in sentencing policy. Protection of society and deterring the criminal is the avowed object of law and that is required to be achieved by imposing an appropriate sentence. The sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The Courts must hear the loud cry for justice by society in cases of the heinous crime of rape on innocent helpless girls of tender years, as in this case, and respond by imposition of proper sentence. Public abhorrence of the crime needs reflection through imposition of appropriate sentence by the Court. There are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances available on the record which may justify imposition of any sentence less than the prescribed minimum on the respondent". In this case for showing some leniency in the sentence, the fact that the accused had admitted his guilt before the panchayatars P.W.5 and P.W.7 is also to be taken into consideration besides his age. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that while confirming the conviction, the sentence alone can be modified to that of seven years rigorous imprisonment instead of ten years rigorous imprisonment. The point is answered accordingly. 12. In fine, the appeal is dismissed. The accused is convicted under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and sentenced to under go seven years rigorous imprisonment instead of ten years rigorous imprisonment for the special reasons indicated by me above. In other aspects, the findings of the learned trial Judge will sustain.