Judgment J.R. Vora, J.—The instant Appeal is preferred by the appellant-accused against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Presiding Officer, 6th Fast Track Court, Surat on 15th September, 2005 in Special Atrocity Case No. 7 of 2004, whereby the present appellant, being accused of the said offence, came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years and pay fine of Rs. 1000/-,in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months for offence punishable under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the brief facts of the case, a complaint of the incident came to be filed on 20.5.2004 before Sachin Police Station by complainant Balo Moghji, father of the victim. According to him, complainant was doing labour work at Village: Kapletha. On 16th May, 2004, after loading a truck with the bricks, complainant and his wife Amnaben had slept at about 4:00 a.m. and they got up at about 6:00 a.m. At that time, the victim was missing and the appellant-accused was also missing from his hut. Relative of the complainant informed that she had noticed the victim was going with the appellant-accused at Sachin. Investigation started in pursuance of this complaint and the appellant-accused as well as the victim were found. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The victim, being of Scheduled Caste, the appellant-accused was also charged for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(11)(12)of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1985, but, he was acquitted from the charge under the said Act. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The victim, being of Scheduled Caste, the appellant-accused was also charged for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(11)(12)of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1985, but, he was acquitted from the charge under the said Act. Vide Exhibit 5, charge-sheet was framed to which, accused pleaded not guilty and, therefore, prosecution examined 14 witnesses and produced on record voluminous documentary evidence. After recording of the statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after hearing both the sides, learned trial Judge came the above conclusion and hence this Appeal. 3. Ms. Sadhana Sagar, learned Advocate for the appellant-accused, restricted her submissions to the quantum of sentence only and did not press the Appeal on merits. It is submitted that though there are no adequate reasons for awarding sentence less than minimum but since the accused belongs to a poor family, and has children and having regard to the fact that the age of the accused was 22 years at the time of the incident, the sentence for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code be reduced to minimum of 7 years. It is also submitted that since the accused is a poor person, the punishment of sentence awarded, in default of fine, on all three counts, also be reduced. It is submitted that, in a heat of passion, the offence is committed and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence be reduced to minimum. 4. Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contested the contention raised by learned Advocate for the appellant-accused and submitted that the rape is committed upon the minor of 15 years and that too victim belonged to a down-trodden community. The appellant-accused was staying nearby and he took this advantage of the minor age of the victim and committed the offence. This is a serious offence affecting the society and no leniency be shown for the reduction of the sentence. 5. We have heard learned Advocates in respect of the issue of quantum of sentence. It is true that the offence committed by the appellant-accused is a heinous one, affecting the society at large. This is a serious offence affecting the society and no leniency be shown for the reduction of the sentence. 5. We have heard learned Advocates in respect of the issue of quantum of sentence. It is true that the offence committed by the appellant-accused is a heinous one, affecting the society at large. Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case that the manner in which the victim had accompanied the appellant-accused and that having regard to the individual circumstances of the accused, in our humble view, the purpose would be served if the minimum sentence, as prescribed by the law, is imposed upon the appellant-accused. There are no reasons for imposing lesser punishment less than minimum prescribed. Therefore, in our humble view, the reduction of sentence from 10 years to 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code would serve the purpose as from the date of arrest, the accused has not been released on bail and that he also belongs to poor strata of the society and individually, his circumstances are taken into consideration. There are peculiar facts of this case in which, we accept the submission of reduction of sentence to the minimum. Hence following final order is passed:— The Appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant-accused by the learned Presiding Officer, 6th Fast Track Court, Surat in Special Atrocity Case No. 7 of 2004 on 15th September, 2005 for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to undergo 3 years imprisonment, is confirmed and to that extent Appeal is dismissed. However, so far as the amount of fine is concerned, which is imposed of Rs. 1000/-, we do not interfere but we reduce the sentence in default of fine from 3 months simple imprisonment as awarded by the learned trial Court to 1 month simple imprisonment and to that extent the Appeal is partly allowed. We also confirm the conviction of the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence awarded to him of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. The Appeal to that extent is dismissed. However, though we also confirm the imposition of fine by the learned trial Court of Rs. We also confirm the conviction of the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence awarded to him of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. The Appeal to that extent is dismissed. However, though we also confirm the imposition of fine by the learned trial Court of Rs. 1000/- for the said offence but we, at the same time, reduce and modify the sentence in default of fine from simple imprisonment of 3 months, as imposed by the learned trial Court, to simple imprisonment of 1 month and to that extent the Appeal is partly allowed. We confirm the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and to that extent, the Appeal is dismissed. However, so far as the substantive sentence is concerned, we modify and reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code from rigorous imprisonment of 10 years, as imposed by the learned trial Court, to 7 years rigorous imprisonment. We confirm the imposition of fine of Rs. 2000/- as awarded by the learned trial Court, at the same time, we reduce the default sentence, in case of non-payment of fine, from 6 months simple imprisonment, as imposed by the learned trial Court, to 1 month simple imprisonment. All the substantive sentences imposed upon the appellant shall run concurrently and benefit of set off shall be granted to the accused. Remaining order in respect of Muddamal of the learned trial Court is not interfered with.