JUDGMENT 1. - Since the controversy involved in all the three appeals arise out of the same F.I.R. number and judgment, hence, all the three appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Registry has put defects in the appeal filed by accused appellant Pappu @ Nawal Kishore. The present appeal is tagged with two separate appeals one filed by accused appellants Roop Narain & Ors. and another filed by accused appellant Amar Lal and others. All the three criminal appeals involve a common grievance, it is in the interest of justice and also to shorten the litigation the appeal filed by accused appellant Pappu @ Nawal Kishore is decided along-with both the aforesaid appeals by curing the defects. 3. By filing these criminal appeals under Section 374 Cr.P.C., the accused appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.7.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bundi (Rajasthan) (for short the 'learned trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 200/2002, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced all the accused appellants except accused appellant Pappu @ Nawal Kishore, as under : 341 I.P.C. : One month simple imprisonment. 376(2)(g) I.P.C. : Ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, each accused appellants shall further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 376 read with Section 511 I.P.C. : Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, In default of payment of fine, each accused appellants shall further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Accused Appellant Pappu @ Nawal Kishore 120-B I.P.C. : Ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 365 I.P.C. : Three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 365 I.P.C. : Three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. Brief facts of the case are as under : " fnukad 12-5-2002 dks Jherh rqylh ckbZ eh.kk] vfHk;ksD=h us vius 'olqj jkeukFk ds lkFk vkj{kh dsUnz] ds'kojk;ikVu ij mifLFkr gksdj ,d ekSf[kd fjiksVZ bl vk'k; dh iathd`r djokbZ fd 5&6 o"kZ iwoZ mldk fookg iIiw eh.kk ds lkFk gqvk Fkk] rc ls gh og mlds ikl vkrh tkrh jgh gSA mlds ,d rhu lky dk cPpk gSA iIiw mls ijs'kku djrk gS] blfy;s og T;knkrj mlds ihgj esa mlds HkkbZ ds ikl jgrh gSA og xbZ gksyh ds ckn ls llqjky vkbZ gSA yxHkx nks ekg gks x;s gSa rc ls mldk ifr jkr ds le; mls tcju ?kj ls mBkdj Ms~u dh rjQ [ksrksa esa ys tkrk gSa vkSj ogka ij nwljs vknfe;ksa dks laHkyk nsrk gS] os yksx mlds lkFk tcju [kksVk dke djrs FksA fdlh jkr dks nks vkneh] fdlh jkr dks pkj vkneh vkrs Fks] ml }kjk euk fd;s tkus ij taxy esa mlds lkFk ekjihV djrs FksA mlds lkFk [kksVk dke djus okyksa dk uke egs'k jktiwr] Nhrj ekyh] jkedSyk'k] :iukjk;.k] vejyky eh.kk] dkyw cuk Bkdjksa dk] [kksfM+;k Bkdqj dk yM+dk izrkiflag gSA vkt jkr 10 cts dh ckr gS] og ?kj ij cSBh gqbZ Fkh] mlds ?kj ij ij dqN esgeku vk;s gq, Fks] ftuds lkFk mldk llqj pkSjkgs dh rjQ x;k gqvk Fkk] rc mldk ifr vk;k vkSj mls tcju [khapdj ckgj M~su ij ys x;k] tgka igys ls gh egs'k jktiwr] Nhrj ekyh o nks&rhu vkneh nwljs [kM+s Fks] mls mudks lEHkyk fn;k] mu yksxksa us mlds lkFk tcju [kksVk dke djus ds fy, tcju mBk fy;k vkSj os mls uksapus yxsA egs'k jktiwr us mlds cka;s xky ij cka;h Hkqtk ij cVdk Hkj fy;kA og fpYykrh jgh] mldh vkokt lqudj efgiky] ckcw] txnh'k] lR;ukjk;.k] jk/ks';ke] ekaxhyky o mldk llqj Hkkxdj vk;s vkSj mls mu yksxksa ls NqM+k;kA ;g ckr mlus igys Hkh dbZ ckj mlds lkl&llqj dks crkbZ FkhA bu yksxksa us /kedh ns j[kh gS fd ;fn Fkkus ij fjiksVZ djokbZ rks tku ls [kRe dj nsaxsA bl Mj ds dkj.k og fjiksVZ djokus ds fy;s ugha vkbZA " 5. On the basis of this oral report, the police registered a case No. 163/2002, for the offence under Sections 376, 376 read with Section 511, 341, 365, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. 6. The police after investigation submitted challan against the accused appellants. 7. The learned trial Court framed the charges against the accused appellants. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial in the matter. 8. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 19 witnesses and certain herself and he found following injuries on her person : " 1- [kjksap] yky jax fy;s gq, 1/2" x 1/4" cka;s xky ij] ;g xksykdkj fy;s gq, FkhA 2- lwtu] yky jax fy;s gq, 1/2" x 1/4" cka;s isjkbVy jhtu ij 3- [kjksap] yky jax fy;s gq, 5" x 1/4" nka;h Hkqtk ij] xksykdkj fy;s gq, 4- yky jax dh [kjksap cka;s .5" x .5" ?kqVus ij " " ;s lHkh pksVsa dqUn vky, ls dkfjr lk/kkj.k izd`fr dh Fkh] ftudh le;kof/k 24 ?k.Vs ds vUnj dh FkhA Jherh rqylh ckbZ dks 25 fnu iwoZ ekfld /keZ gqvk Fkk] og ,d cPps dh eka FkhA vkarfjd ijh{k.k ij mlds tuukaxksa ij dksbZ ckgkz pksV ugha ikbZ xbZA ijh{k.k gsrq mldk cstkbuy Losc fy;k x;k FkkA xqIrkaxksa ds cky igys ls lkQ fd;s gq, Fks] mlds diM+ksa ij dksbZ nkx /kCcs ugha FksA mldh jk; esa cykRlax ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ fuf'pr jk; ugha nh tk ldrh Fkh] ysfdu 'kjhj ij la?k"kZ ds fu'kku ekStwn FksA " 9. Mr. B.S. Sinsinwar and Mr. Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for the accused appellants, vehementally submit before the Court that they are not challenging the conviction of the accused appellants but they are only challenging the sentence passed by the learned trial Court, as mentioned above. 10. They further submits that the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment has failed to consider the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution witnesses are highly interested witnesses. Thus, their testimony cannot be relied upon. PW-8 Babulal, PW-10 Mahipal, PW-11 Jagdish, PW-13 Satyanarain, PW-14 Narbada Bai and PW-18 Radhey Shyam, have not supported the case of the prosecution and also have been declared hostile. Prosecution witnesses have made improvements, omissions and contradictions in their testimony. There is a drastic contradictions and improvements in the statement of prosecutrix Tulsi Bai. PW-8 Babulal, PW-10 Mahipal, PW-11 Jagdish, PW-13 Satyanarain, PW-14 Narbada Bai and PW-18 Radhey Shyam, have not supported the case of the prosecution and also have been declared hostile. Prosecution witnesses have made improvements, omissions and contradictions in their testimony. There is a drastic contradictions and improvements in the statement of prosecutrix Tulsi Bai. The medical report submitted by the prosecution is not supposed to be of prosecutrix Smt. Tulsi Bai and it is not corroborated by any evidence. 11. Lastly they submits that the character of the prosecutrix Smt. Tulsi Bai appears to be doubtful because she is at present living with one person namely; Mr. Brahmanand. Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court needs interference of this Court. 12. Learned counsel in support of their cases, relied upon certain judgments which are reproduced here-in-below : (1) AIR 1989 SC 937 : 1989 Cr.L.R. (SC) 247, Prem Chand & Anr. v. State of Haryana . A. Hon'ble Apex Court in para 7 has held as under : "Be that as it may, both the Courts below, as pointed out supra thought it fit to impose the minimum rigorous imprisonment of 10 years. No doubt an offence of this nature has to be viewed very seriously and has to be dealt with condign punishment. But the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case coupled with the conduct of the victim girl, in our view, do not call for the minimum sentence as prescribed under Section 376 sub,section (2). On the other hand, we hold that the proviso to that section can be invoked in the present case and a sub-minimum sentence will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, while, affirming the conviction of both these appellants as confirmed by the High Court; we reduce the sentence of imprisonment in respect of each of the appellants from 10 years to 5 years. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of subject to the modification of sentence, as indicated above. 13. Against the aforesaid judgment, criminal review petition was filed before Hon'ble Apex Court, which was decided vide judgment dated 14.12.1989 and Hon'ble Apex Court reviewed its earlier judgment. The judgment on review petition is reported in (1990) 1 SCC 240 : 1990 Cr.L.R. (SC) 66, State of Haryana v. Prem Chand & others . 13. Against the aforesaid judgment, criminal review petition was filed before Hon'ble Apex Court, which was decided vide judgment dated 14.12.1989 and Hon'ble Apex Court reviewed its earlier judgment. The judgment on review petition is reported in (1990) 1 SCC 240 : 1990 Cr.L.R. (SC) 66, State of Haryana v. Prem Chand & others . Relevant part of head note of this judgment is reproduced as under : "Penal Code, 1860 Section 376(2) proviso Award of less than minimum sentence Conviction of police officials under Section 376 and minimum sentence of 10 years' RI recorded by trial Court and confirmed by High Court Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case including conduct of the prosecutrix in not disclosing about the incident of rape for five days to anyone, held, accused entitled to sub-minimum sentence of 5 years." 14. Lastly learned counsel for the accused appellants relied upon a case Lodkya v. State of Rajasthan through the PP, SB Criminal Appeal No. 1544/2003, decided on 17.5.2007, reported in 2007(3) RCC 1257 : 2007 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj) 1107 . In the head-note of this judgment, it is held as under : "Penal Code, 1860 Section 376(2)(e) & (g)Reduction sentence During final arguments in appeal, conviction not pressed on merits and sought reduction in sentence Conviction maintained Keeping in view that prosecutrix is 27 years of age and there were number of contradictions in her statement and taking into consideration the Apex Court rulings cited, sentence reduced from 10 years RI to 7 years RI." 15. Per contra, Mr. B.N. Sandhu, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellants. Thus, the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court is just and proper and no interference is required to be called for in the impugned judgment. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the accused appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the entire material made available to me including the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the accused appellants. 17. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the learned counsel for the accused appellants, during the course of arguments, confined his arguments only for the purpose of reduction of sentence of imprisonment, therefore, it is not necessary to discuss the facts and prosecution evidence in this regard. 17. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the learned counsel for the accused appellants, during the course of arguments, confined his arguments only for the purpose of reduction of sentence of imprisonment, therefore, it is not necessary to discuss the facts and prosecution evidence in this regard. The only point for consideration in the present case is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the sentence of ten years RI awarded by the learned trial Court should be reduced to a period of sentence of imprisonment of seven years or not. 18. Taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances of the case, as also submission of the learned counsel for the accused appellants, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to each of the accused appellants is reduced to 7 (seven) years from 10 (ten) years. 19. Conviction of accused appellants is maintained for seven years rigorous imprisonment, and a fine of Rs. 6,000/- is imposed upon each of the accused appellants and in default of payment of fine they shall further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Out of the total deposited fine amount by all the accused appellants, 80% amount of fine shall be given to the prosecutrix Smt. Tulsi Bai as compensation amount and remaining 20% amount shall be deposited in Government account. 20. The impugned judgment of the trial Judge shall stand modified as indicated above.Appeals disposed of. *******