JUDGMENT Honble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—Appellant was tried on a charge under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, in S.T. No. 417 of 2001, and Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Pilibhit, vide judgment and order dated 31.7.2007 held him guilty and punished him with 10 years R.I. plus fine Rs. 10,000/-. 2. The accused appeals. 3. According to the prosecution version, on 20.4.2001 in the morning around 10 Oclock. PW-2 prosecutrix Km Lalita aged about 10 years, daughter of informant PW-1 Tarachand had gone to the field of her father, situate at the periphery of village Ghazipur Kunda, police station Barkhera District Pilibhit. She had gone to give food to her father. The father of the prosecutrix was working in the field and in the adjacent field was the accused Madanlal as the said field belonged to the accused. The girl was, at the time of occurrence, in her fathers hut, which is adjacent to the field. 4. It is said that at that time, accused Madan Lal came into the hut and finding her alone, raped her. The cries of the girl attracted her father who came running to the hut and found his daughter Km. Lalita unconscious, and blood oozing out of her private parts. Seeing the informant, the accused ran away. It is alleged that meanwhile, the wife of informant also reached the field, and the informant carried his daughter on his back to the police station Barkheda District Pilibhit where he filed a written report (Ex. K -1) the same day at 11.45 A.M. 5. On the basis of this written report (Ex. K-1), the Thana police instituted the Case Crime No. 185 of 2001 under Section 376, IPC against the accused vide chik FIR (Ext. ka-2), the investigation of which was assigned to P.W. 6, S.I. Suresh Kumar. 6. The police referred the girl for medical examination to District Hospital Pilibhit, where around 1.20 P.M. Km. Lalita was examined by P.W. 4, Dr. Surabhi Prakash, who sent sample of her vaginal smear for pathological examination and advised X-ray of Km. Lalita for determination of her age. P.W. 4, Dr. 6. The police referred the girl for medical examination to District Hospital Pilibhit, where around 1.20 P.M. Km. Lalita was examined by P.W. 4, Dr. Surabhi Prakash, who sent sample of her vaginal smear for pathological examination and advised X-ray of Km. Lalita for determination of her age. P.W. 4, Dr. Surabhi on examination of the girl found staining of fresh and dried blood present over inner aspect of both thighs, inner aspect of thigh also stained with blood, which, was trickling down from vagina, hymen fresh torn at multiple sides, muscle deep tear present in left vaginal wall reaching upto left fornix, and vide her report (Ex. K-5) opined the possibility of rape on 20.4.2001 around 10.00 Oclock in the morning. On basis of her X-ray report (Ex. K-7), the girl was around 9 year of age. 7. The Investigation Officer went to the place of occurrence, prepared site plan (Ex. K-9) and after recording the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet (Ex. K-10) under Section 376, I.P.C. against the accused. 8. To prove its case, the prosecution examined father of the prosecutrix, informant P.W. 1 Tara Chand, prosecutrix P.W. 2 Km. Lalita, P.W. 3 Head Constable Shyam Lal, P.W. 4 Dr. Surabhi Prakash, P.W. 5 Constable Amar Pal Singh, P.W. 6 S.I. Surendra Kumar, P.W. 7 Radiologist R.L. Gautam. 9. The case of the accused-appellant was of plain and simple denial who also pleaded that informant Tara Chand, was forcing the accused to sell of his land, infavour of the informant, which he declined and, therefore, to coerce him into submission, the informant foisted this false case against him. 10. The Trial Judge found the prosecution evidence dependable and convicted the accused, as noted above. 11. Heard Sri P.N. Mishra, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Apul Mishra, advocate for the appellant and Sri Surendra Singh-II, Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 12. The main evidence in the case is of the prosecutrix P.W. 2 Km. Lalita herself. She has given statement supporting the prosecution version, as rendered in the first information report ( Ex. K-1) and which does not need repetition. The age of the prosecutrix was 9 year at the time of occurrence, according to the doctors report (Ex. K-7). Her statement was recorded in the Court an year after. Lalita herself. She has given statement supporting the prosecution version, as rendered in the first information report ( Ex. K-1) and which does not need repetition. The age of the prosecutrix was 9 year at the time of occurrence, according to the doctors report (Ex. K-7). Her statement was recorded in the Court an year after. No Voire-Doire was done by the Trial Judge, for ascertaining, whether the witness was possessed of sufficient understanding of comprehending questions, and giving rational answers to them. No issue was, however, raised at the time of Trial, from the side of the accused, and also no such contention was raised during arguments in appeal here, that the prosecutrix was not possessed of sufficient understanding, to comprehend and to give rational answers, to them. It may be gathered there from that the accused had no such objection. The Trial Judge also did not feel the need, to conduct any Voire-Doire, which shows that he was of the view, that the prosecutrix has sufficient understanding to give rational answers to the questions put to her. 13. A reading of the statement of the prosecutrix P.W. 2 Km. Lalita recorded by the Trial Court, further clearly indicates that the prosecutrix had developed sufficient understanding to understand the questions and giving proper replies and the Trial Court, was justified, in its view that she was possessed of sufficient understanding, and could answer questions properly. The statement of the prosecutrix, therefore, need not be side-lined, only because no Voire-Doire was done by the Trial Court. 14. Reverting to the statement of prosecutrix P.W. 2 Km. Lalita, it will be seen, that she has given a very clear statement of the incident and has identified the accused, as one, who perpetrated the outrage. Nothing has come out in her cross-examination, which may in the least, indicate, that the girl has given a false statement. Her accusation, is direct and uninhibited, and there was no reason for her to falsely implicate the accused. The injuries sustained by her, noted above, provide abundant corroboration to her statement, and it is not possible to say that she is falsely implicating the accused, while injuries were caused by some other person. 15. Her accusation, is direct and uninhibited, and there was no reason for her to falsely implicate the accused. The injuries sustained by her, noted above, provide abundant corroboration to her statement, and it is not possible to say that she is falsely implicating the accused, while injuries were caused by some other person. 15. The occurrence took place at 10 Oclock in the day, while the first information was lodged at 11.45 P.M. which shows that there was a prompt first information report, and the accused was named therein.The promptness of first information report is itself a corroborating factor. 16. The statement of the father of the prosecutrix P.W. 1 about having seen the accused, running away from the hut, where the incident happened, also provides corroboration, to the statement of the prosecutrix , though under law, the statement of prosecutrix alone, is sufficient to find accused guilty. 17. Compulsive coitus with a matured grown up lady, is highly reprehensible and with an innocent 9 year old girl, it is beastly macabre and shocking. Besides the pain and torture, the shame of it sticks to her, lingering for the whole life and she suffers in silent agony for no fault of her. 18. The Counsel for the appellant pleaded that the accused, who was sentenced to 10 years R.I. has already spent six and a half year in jail, and it would be just, fair, and proper, if he is now released so that he could have a Happy Dewali at home, which will be a great gift to him. With regard to the plea of concession, raised by the Counsel for the appellant, the Counsel has pointed out the proviso to sub-clause (2) of Section 376 I.P.C., which authorises the Court to reduce the minimum sentence of 10 years for adequate and special reasons, to be mentioned, in the judgment. The argument that the accused should be allowed to celebrate Dewali at home, is unacceptable, and that is no proper reason, for reduction in the quantum of sentence. 19. However, there are other valid reasons, which in this case, justify lenience, to the extent of minimising the sentence, of appellant, to the period already undergone, which is almost six and a half year. 20. It will be noticed that the accused himself was in teens, and the Juvenile Judge held that his age was 18 year. 19. However, there are other valid reasons, which in this case, justify lenience, to the extent of minimising the sentence, of appellant, to the period already undergone, which is almost six and a half year. 20. It will be noticed that the accused himself was in teens, and the Juvenile Judge held that his age was 18 year. Such deviations are attributable to frustration in younger generation. Yale University Prass New Heaven U.S.A. has brought out a publication, titled Aggression is always the consequence of Frustration, in which it has been pointed out that frustration, which causes aggression, is not always overt or recognisable. It is often repressed and festers in the subconscious, to appear later, as resentment, hatred, antagonistic feelings, and misbehaviour. 21. There is no previous history of any criminal antecedents, and it is very likely, that the sudden assault on the minor girl by the accused was the result of frustration. The act of the accused-appellant was impulsive, and is likely to have been occasioned, because of a general feeling of frustration. He was in his teens, when the crime was committed, and was not, presumably fully conscious, of the gravity of the offence. The offensive act seems to have been committed in a spell of physical urge, which he could not control, and which seems to have been actuated by a general feeling of discontent and exasperation. It was not a cool and calculated assault, and it happened at the spur of the moment because, he found the girl alone, in the hut. He did not make any previous moves, to befriend the girl, or shadow her, for the said purpose. 22. Taking into account, all these circumstances, it seems appropriate in view of particular facts of the case, to release the accused on the sentence, already undergone. 23. Order is passed accordingly. Appeal partly allowed to that extent. ————