N.N. Mathur, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dt. 09.01.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Camp Rajgarh, Churu, convicting appellant Ummed Singh of offence under Sec. 376 (2)(f) IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year’s simple imprisonment. The amount of fine has been directed to be paid to PW-2 Ramniwas, father of the victim. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 14.08.2003 at about 9 p.m., PW-2 Ramniwas lodged a First Information Report Ex P-3 at Police Station Sidhmukh stating inter alia that on 13.08.2003, he had gone to village Sihandwa. On 14.08.2003, when he returned to his house at about 5 p.m. from village Sihandwa, his wife PW-4 Sarbati informed that while she was in the field, appellant Ummed Singh enticed her daughter PW-5 Mst. Meera and took her to a nearby field and committed rape on her. He disclosed the age of Mst. Meera as seven years. 3. On this information, police registered a case for offence under Sec. 376 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. The police record the statement of PW-5 Mst. Meera, PW-2 Ramniwas and PW-4 Sarbati under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. The victim was medically examined by the Doctor. After usual investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the appellant of offence under Sec. 376 (2) (f) IPC. The prosecution has adduced oral and documentary evidence during the trial to prove its case. The appellant denied the correctness of the charges levelled against him and claimed trial. The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above. 4. We have carefully scanned and analyzed the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out certain infirmities in the statement of PW-2 Ramniwas, PW-4 Sarbati and PW-5 Mst. Meera. It is submitted that the witnesses are not credit worthy. Learned counsel has also submitted that there is variance in the medical and ocular evidence. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court. 5. PW-1 Deep Chand is the ‘motbir’ of some of the police memos. He has not supported the prosecution case, as such, has declared hostile. PW-2 Ramniwas is the father of the victim. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court. 5. PW-1 Deep Chand is the ‘motbir’ of some of the police memos. He has not supported the prosecution case, as such, has declared hostile. PW-2 Ramniwas is the father of the victim. After giving the details of his family, he has stated that a day before the incident, he had gone to village Sihandwa. On the date of incident, he returned to his house at about 5 p.m.. He found his daughter Mst. Meera lying on a cot in unconscious condition. On enquiry, his wife PW-4 Sarbati disclosed that his neighbour appellant Ummed Singh persuaded his daughter and took her to the nearby field and committed rape on her. He disclosed the age of Mst. Meera as seven years. It was also stated that her cloths i.e. ‘salwar’ and ‘jumfher’ were stained with blood. After some time, on gaining conscious, Mst. Meera narrated the incident. He went to the police station along with Mst. Meera and submitted a written report Ex. P-3. He further stated that her daughter Mst. Meera was initially treated at Rajgarh. Thereafter, she was referred to the Government Hospital, Churu. She remained in the hospital for about 15 to 16 days. Nothing substantial has been elicited in the cross-examination to discredit the testimony of his witness. 6. PW-4 Sarbati is the mother of the victim. She disclosed the age of her daughter as seven years. On the date of incident, at about 1 p.m., when she returned from the field, her daughter Mst. Meera was missing. She was told by her son Narendra that she has been taken by appellant Ummed Singh. She was attracted by the cries of her daughter Mst. Meera from the filed of Deep Chand. Mst. Meera was weeping. Her clothes were stained with blood. It was disclosed by Deep Chand that appellant Ummed Singh committed rape on her. Mst. Meera also disclosed that appellant Ummed Singh took her in the trench of the field and committed rape on her. She has disclosed this fact to her husband on his return at about 5 p.m. She has given the details of her treatment at Rajgarh and thereafter at Churu. Nothing substantial has been elicited in the cross-examination to discredit the testimony of this witness. She has disclosed this fact to her husband on his return at about 5 p.m. She has given the details of her treatment at Rajgarh and thereafter at Churu. Nothing substantial has been elicited in the cross-examination to discredit the testimony of this witness. She has denied the suggestion that appellant has been falsely implicated on account of enmity. 7. PW-5 Mst. Meera is the minor girl aged seven years. The learned trial Court, after putting certain questions to satisfy that she was competent to give statement, recorded her statement. She stated that at about 12 noon, appellant Ummed Singh visited her house and took her on the pretext of grazing cattle. Appellant Ummed Singh took her in the trench of the field. He opened the zip of the trouser and committed rape on her. There was bleeding. Hearing her cries, Deep Chand arrived and rescued her. Some indecent question have been put to her, which the learned trial Court ought not to have permitted. However, the fact remains that nothing substantial has been elicited to discredit the testimony of this witness. PW-3 Dr. Jai Lakhtakia was posted at the Government Hospital, Rajgarh at the relevant time. He examined victim Mst. Meera, aged seven years and noticed the following injuries vide Ex. P-6:- 1. Bruise multiple interrupted semicircular at middle of left cheek–teeth bite. 2. Bruise multiple at lower part of Back of child–simple–Blunt. 3. Vagina has tear at lower side ½ x ½ x M. deep with bleeding. In the opinion of the Medical Board, there is great evidence that some hard object was introduced into vagina forcefully. 8. He also examined appellant Ummed Singh vide Ex. P-7. Appellant Ummed Singh was found to be competent to indulge in the sexual intercourse. He denied the suggestion that the injuries as indicated in Ex. P-6 could be sustained on inserting stick in the vagina. There is no reason to discredit the testimony of this witness. Mst. Meera was referred to the Government Hospital at Churu, where, she was attended by PW-6 Dr. Vijayswaroop Bhargva. He stated that on 16.08.2003, a minor operation on the private parts of Mst. Meera was undertaken. He has produced the operation note vide Ex. P-9. This clearly indicates the seriousness of the injuries of Mst. Meera. PW-8 Satyapal Singh is the Investigating Officer. He has given the details of the investigation. 9. Vijayswaroop Bhargva. He stated that on 16.08.2003, a minor operation on the private parts of Mst. Meera was undertaken. He has produced the operation note vide Ex. P-9. This clearly indicates the seriousness of the injuries of Mst. Meera. PW-8 Satyapal Singh is the Investigating Officer. He has given the details of the investigation. 9. On careful consideration of the entire matter, we are of the view that the conviction of the appellant is sustainable even on the sole testimony of PW-5 Mst. Meera. She is a minor girl. She has sustained serious injuries on her private parts, which have been amply proved from the statements of PW-3 Dr. Jai Lakhtakia and PW-6 Dr. Vijayswaroop Bhargva. Though, no corroboration is required in the rape case, still her statement finds corroboration from the statement of PW-2 Ramniwas and PW-4 Sarbati. 10. Thus, we are of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly found the prosecution case proved and convicted the appellant Ummed Singh of offence under Sec. 376 (2) (f) IPC. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 11. Coming to the question of sentence, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate to reduce the sentence of appellant Ummed Singh from imprisonment for life to ten years. However, fine of Rs. 5000/- is increased up to Rs. 10,000/-. 12. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. While upholding the conviction of the appellant of offence under Sec. 376 (2) (f) IPC, the sentence of imprisonment of life is reduced to the period of ten years. The sentence with respect to payment of fine is increased from Rs. 5000/-to Rs. 10,000/-. The entire amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to PW-2 Ramswaroop, the father of the victim. The amount of the Rs. 10,000/- shall be deposited with the trial Court within a period of three months. On depositing, the same shall be paid to PW-2 Ramniwas. In case, appellant Ummed Singh fails to deposit the amount of Rs. 10,000/- within a period of three months, the order of this Court with respect to modifying the sentence of appellant shall stands vacated and the sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court shall stands restored. Appellant Ummed Singh is in jail. He will serve out the remaining part of the sentence. 10,000/- within a period of three months, the order of this Court with respect to modifying the sentence of appellant shall stands vacated and the sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court shall stands restored. Appellant Ummed Singh is in jail. He will serve out the remaining part of the sentence. * * * * *