Judgment :- The appellants have challenged the Judgment and Order of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 377 IPC as against accused No.1/appellant No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 506 r/w. section 34 IPC as against appellant Nos.2 to 4/accused Nos.2 to 4 and awarding sentence, on a trial held by the Sessions court at Davanagere. 2. Sans unnecessary details the prosecution version unfolded during the trial is as under: P.W.1-Victim is the daughter of P.W.2 and younger sister of P.W.3. They are the residents of Channagiri. She completed her III standard at Kulambi. As she was not able to secure the transfer certificate and was shifted to Channagiri, she was admitted to I standard. It is on 04.06.2001 at about 2.00 p.m. P.W.1 went to the flour mill of one Shanmukappa, the father of accused No.1 with the food-grains for grinding on the said day. P.W.1 having gone to the flour mill at 2.00 p.m. did not return to home up-to 4.00 p.m. In the circumstances P.W.2, her mother was proceeding to the flour mill of Shanmukhappa to enquire as to whether he saw P.W.1-victim and on the way found P.W.1 weeping. When she questioned P.W.1 the reason for weeping, P.W.1 stated that accused No.1 who was in the flour mill asked her to come inside the flour mill and after closing the doors and windows of the flour mill, she was spoiled. When further questioned as to what actually happened, she stated that accused No.1 made P.W.1 to lie on a food grain bag and put his male organ in her mouth and after withdrawing it caused penetration by putting his male organ into her private part. So, after hearing this incident from P.W.1, P.W.2 went to the house of the accused, and at that time, it is alleged that accused Nos.2 to 4 including accused No.1 gave a threat to P.W.2 not to go to the Police Station and in case if she files any complaint, her reputation in the village will be spoiled and they will not allow them to live in the village and gave threat of danger to her life. Through she went to the villagers with the complaint, they also advised that she may suffer harassment by the accused. Through she went to the villagers with the complaint, they also advised that she may suffer harassment by the accused. Thereafter, P.W.2 secured her brother and approached the Police Station with the complaint-Ex.P2 and submitted the same to P.W.21-PSI., Honnali Police Station and it was registered on 07.06.2001 at about 6.30 p.m. in Crime No.108/2001 and he sent the complaint-Ex.P2 and FIR-Ex.P25 to the Magistrate. Later, P.W.20-Police Inspector continued the investigation and visited the scene of occurrence and as shown by the witnesses, held the spot mahazar-Ex.P3 in the presence of P.W.5 and another and seized M.Os.1 to 3, the clothes of P.W.1. Thereafter, he went to the place wherein P.W.2 was threatened by accused 2 to 4 and he held another spot mahazar-Ex.P4 in the presence of the attesting witnesses i.e., P.Ws.5 and 6. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and requested the PWD authorities to draw sketch of the scene of occurrence. In the meanwhile, accused No.1 had consumed poison and was under treatment in the hospital at Davanagere. P.W.20 asked the Police to apprehend and produce accused No.1 before him. He arrested accused Nos.2 and 3 and secured Ex.P10, the medical certificate with regard to the examination of P.W.1 and also requested the other doctors, who treated P.W.1 to furnish the injury certificate. On 26.06.2001, he secured the copy of the FIR-Ex.P18 in Crime No.116/2001, registered the offence against accused No.1 for attempt to commit suicide. After discharge of the 1st accused from the hospital, he arrested him and recorded his voluntary statement as per Ex.P19. The 1st accused led the Police and the attesting witnesses to his house and produced the clothes, torn lungi, etc. i.e., M.Os.4 to 6 and he seized them under the mahazar-Ex.8 in the presence of P.Ws.8, 18 and 19. Thereafter, the 1st accused took the parents and attesting witnesses to the flour mill and produced M.Os.7 and 8 and he seized them under mahazar-Ex.P9. He sent accused No.1 for the purpose of medical examination and secured the hand-sketch of the scene occurrence. He sent the seized articles to the forensic experts and obtained the report-Ex.P20 and letter Ex.P21. Thereafter, the 1st accused took the parents and attesting witnesses to the flour mill and produced M.Os.7 and 8 and he seized them under mahazar-Ex.P9. He sent accused No.1 for the purpose of medical examination and secured the hand-sketch of the scene occurrence. He sent the seized articles to the forensic experts and obtained the report-Ex.P20 and letter Ex.P21. He secured Ex.P14, the certificate of birth from the school authorities and also collected the serology report-Ex.P23 and the property extract and also the copy of the charge sheet in Crime No.116/2001 and on completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused. During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Was.1 to 21 and in their evidence got marked the documents Exs.P1 to 25 and M.Os.1 to 8. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused have taken the defence of total denial. The trial Court on appreciation of the material on record, convicted accused No.1 for the offence under Sections 377 and 376(2)(f) IPC and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000-00 for the offence under Section 377 IPC and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000-00 for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC., and accused Nos.2 to 4 were convicted for the offence under Section 506 IPC and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000-00 each. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused have approached this Court in appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned Government Pleader. 4. The point that arisesfor my consideration is; Whether the Judgment and Order convicting appellant No.1/accused No.1 for the offence under Sections 377 and 376(2)(f) IPC and appellant Nos.2 to 4/accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offence under Section 506 IPC and the sentence thereon as ordered by the Court below is illegal and perverse? 5. 4. The point that arisesfor my consideration is; Whether the Judgment and Order convicting appellant No.1/accused No.1 for the offence under Sections 377 and 376(2)(f) IPC and appellant Nos.2 to 4/accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offence under Section 506 IPC and the sentence thereon as ordered by the Court below is illegal and perverse? 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that there is inconsistent material on record, which has been wrongly accepted by the trial Court and further even as regards the time of the offence, though P.W.1 states that the incident took place for about 2 minutes, the evidence reveals that P.W.1 is stated to have been in the flour mill for about 2 hours and in the circumstances, he submits that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is unreliable and unacceptable. So also it is his contention that there was ill-will between the parties due to the quarrel between P.W.2 and the accused and that the accused were falsely implicated by filing a false complaint at the instance of P.W.2. He further contends that initially P.W.1 was taken to the hospital and P.W.10-doctor examined her, the history of the incident was given as a fall from the bicycle and later a false complaint was lodged for the offence under Sections 377, 376 and 506 IPC. It is a subsequent thought to implicate the appellants falsely. Further more, it is their contention that the evidence led by the prosecution is not consistent, cogent and therefore, the court below committed an illegality in convicting the appellants for the above said offence. Furthermore, he submits that so far as the appellants 2 to 4 are concerned, there is inconsistent version, wherein P.W.1 states that it is the parents of accused No.1, who caused ‘galata’, whereas P.W.2 states that it is accused Nos.2 to 4 who quarreled and gave threat. In the circumstances, he submits that this inconsistent version is sufficient to grant an Order of acquittal for accused 2 to 4. He also contends that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and delay the said has been taken to disadvantage by the complainant in false implication of the accused. In the circumstances, he submits that this inconsistent version is sufficient to grant an Order of acquittal for accused 2 to 4. He also contends that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and delay the said has been taken to disadvantage by the complainant in false implication of the accused. Alternatively relying upon the decision of the Apex Court and other courts he submits that there is no material for the offence under Section 376 IPC and at the most it may be an attempt to commit the rape. Hence, he submits to take into consideration the age of the 1st accused, who was about 17 years at the time of the incident and reduce the sentence. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the appellants requested to set aside the impugned Judgment and Order. 6. I have scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and also the documents admitted in evidence. P.W.1, the victim was aged about 10 years at the time of the incident and was studying in the I standard and even if it is considered, she studied up-to III Standard at Kulambi and thereafter took admission to the I Standard at Channagiri, the fact that she studied up-to III Standard would go to establish that she was a girl aged about 10 years at the time of the incident. The prosecution has examined P.W.13-Head Master of the School at Kulambi, who states that P.W.1 was studying in the school from I standard to III standard and the date of birth has been mentioned in the records and he has produced Ex.P14-birth certificate, which reveals that she was born on 10.01.1992. So, as could be seen from this document, P.W.1 was approximately aged about 10 years at the time of the incident and the fact that she studied for 3 years in Kulambi school and was studying in I standard at Channagiri reveals the fact that she was a girl aged about 10 years at the time of the incident. 7. So far as the incident is concerned, according to the prosecution, it is on 04.06.2001 in between 2.00 to 3.00 p.m., an act of sodomy and rape is alleged to have been committed by accused No.1 on P.W.1 in the flour mill of the father of accused No.1 at Kulambi village. 7. So far as the incident is concerned, according to the prosecution, it is on 04.06.2001 in between 2.00 to 3.00 p.m., an act of sodomy and rape is alleged to have been committed by accused No.1 on P.W.1 in the flour mill of the father of accused No.1 at Kulambi village. Though this incident took place on the said date, the complaint in respect of this incident was submitted on 07.06.2001 at about 6.30 p.m. to P.W.21-PSI of Honnali Police Station and it is evident from the complainant-Ex.P2. So far as this delay is concerned, the complainant-P.W.2 in her complaint stated that after the incident she went to the accused and she was threatened danger to her life. In the circumstances, she secured the presence of her brother and as the accused caused obstruction and had threatened, she came late to the Police Station and submitted the complain-Ex.P2. 8. It is relevant to note that the offence alleged against accused No.1 is particularly an offence under Section 376 IPC. So also an offence under Section 377 IPC. Such an offence committed against the victim at the instance of the 1st accused would be a stigma during the lifetime of the victim and it is in these circumstances, taking into consideration the culture and the effect on the reputation of the victim that the complainant was hesitant to approach the Police to lodge a complaint immediately after the incident. They think many a times whether a complaint is to be lodged or not. So, if this aspect is taken into consideration, I do not think that the delay has any effect to disbelieve the evidence led. 9. Furthermore, P.W.2 had taken P.W.1 to the Primary Health Centre at Kuulambi and P.W.10-Dr. Giridhara examined P.W.1 on 06.06.2001 at about 12.00 noon and P.W.2 had given the history of the incident and sustaining injury by P.W.1 due to fall from the bicycle and at that time, P.W.10 examined P.W.1 and found the injuries over her private part and he felt that these injuries might have occurred due to the hit of the parts of the bicycle and in that context, he issued the certificate-Ex.P11. He also states in his evidence that such injury could be possible in case if there is an attempt to commit forcible sexual intercourse. He also states in his evidence that such injury could be possible in case if there is an attempt to commit forcible sexual intercourse. He advised P.W.2 to take the injured to a lady doctor for the purpose of treatment. Now the perusal of the certificate produced at Ex.P11, reveals that there was a slight swelling in the region of vulva may be caused by trauma over to vulval region by bicycle injury. So, the incident having occurred on 04.06.2001 at about Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has supported the Judgment and Order of the Trial Court. 2.00 p.m., even to approach the doctor-P.W.10, P.W.2 went to the hospital on 06.06.2001 and P.W.1 was subjected to examination. Now, so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, the other evidence has to be taken into consideration. It is after the allegation in the complaint-Ex.P2 by P.W.2 that P.W.1 was again sent to lady medical officer of the hospital at Honnali, wherein the history of sexual assault was given and P.W.1 was accompanied by a lady Police Constable and on examination of P.W.1 on 07.06.2001 at 10.00 a.m., the doctor states that there were no external injuries on the body and opines that there is no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. 10. As the victim was examined by P.W.10 on 06.06.2001, though she revealed the history as due to bicycle injury, the fact that P.W.1 sustained swelling in the region of vulva and that it may be caused trauma to vulval region, it is evident that the injury was on the private part and they were no external injuries on the victim. If really, P.W.1 had fallen from the bicycle, there was no reason for her or her mother to lodge the complaint with an allegation of forcible sexual intercourse and an act of sodomy by putting the male organ by accused No.1 in the mouth of P.W.1. It is in these circumstances, if the injury sustained by P.W.1 is looked into as mentioned in Ex.P11, the absence of external injuries on the body is inconsistent with the version of the accused about P.W.1 sustaining injury by fall from the bicycle. It is in these circumstances, if the injury sustained by P.W.1 is looked into as mentioned in Ex.P11, the absence of external injuries on the body is inconsistent with the version of the accused about P.W.1 sustaining injury by fall from the bicycle. In this context, if the material placed on record is appreciated, it is relevant to note that when a girl aged 10 years is subjected to sexual assault or an act of sodomy, generally the victim does not desire to expose such fact to the people as it would be an insult and it causes lot of humiliation and embarrassment. It may be because of this reason that P.W.2 instead of informing the doctor-P.W.10 about sexual assault, might have stated that P.W.1 had sustained the injury by fall from the bicycle and when the material placed on record over-rules the possibility of the victim’s sustaining the injuries by fall from the bicycle and the fact that P.W.1 has sustained injury on the private part would lead to the only inference that P.W.2 did not give the true information with regard to the sexual assault by accused No.1 on P.W.1. 11. So, it is on the next day on 06.06.2001 at about 10.00 a.m. the lady doctor-P.W.9 examined P.W.1 and though it is stated that the victim was accompanied by lady P.C. No.635 of Honnali Police Station, the doctor has stated in her evidence that she was accompanied by her mother-P.W.2 with the history of sexual assault and she did not find any external or internal injury on her private part and in this context certificate-Ex.P10 was issued. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that even before registration of the crime, the victim was taken to the hospital of P.W.9 and that there is inconsistent version in the evidence of P.W.9 and the contents of Ex.P10, wherein P.W.9 states that she was accompanied by mother and in the certificate-Ex.P10, it is stated that the victim was accompanied by a lady Police Constable, he submits that there is creation of false document and it would probablise the false involvement of the accused. Now, even assuming and accepting the version of the learned counsel for the appellants, it is relevant to note that the examination of P.W.1 by the doctor-P.W.9 is of no help to the accused as the doctor-P.W.9 states in her evidence that as there was no external or internal injury and in the absence of any material on record, which is contrary to the case of the prosecution and when Ex.P10 does not corroborate the version of the prosecution, the wrong committed by the Investigating Officer in securing Ex.P10 which is of no help to the prosecution does not affect the case of the prosecution and the prosecution also cannot take the benefit of Ex.P10 as there is no incriminating material in the certificate issued by P.W.9. 12. The prosecution has examined P.W.11, the medical officer of the Government Hospital at Honnali, who examined the accused and after the examination, issued the certificate Ex.P12 stating that accused No.1 is able to or have the potency to commit the rape. 13. The Investigating Officer P.W.20 has collected the FIR, which has been produced at Ex.P18 with regard to registration of crime against accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 309 IPC. The perusal, the FIR reveals that the Head Constable of Honnali Police Station submitted the complaint stating that on 23.06.2001, when he went to the hospital, wherein accused No.1 was admitted to take treatment for consuming poison and attempted to take treatment for consuming poison and attempted to commit suicide. He came to know that after the incident of sexual assault on P.W.1, accused No.1 had consumed insecticide on 06.06.2001 at about 1.00 p.m. and thereafter admitted in the hospital for the purpose of treatment. So, the fact that accused No.1 was in the hospital for the purpose of treatment in Crime No.116/2001, in my opinion is a circumstance, which supports the prosecution and an inference could be drawn that after the sexual assault, apprehending the possibility of insult and arrest, accused No.1 could have made an effort to commit suicide and thereafter must have been in the hospital for treatment. 14. Now to consider the material evidence of P.W.1-victim, though she is aged 10 years at the time of the incident, during her examination, she was questioned with regard to her maturity of mind and thereafter, the evidence was recorded. 14. Now to consider the material evidence of P.W.1-victim, though she is aged 10 years at the time of the incident, during her examination, she was questioned with regard to her maturity of mind and thereafter, the evidence was recorded. In her evidence, she states that she was residing with her mother in the village Kulambi along with her sister and studied up-to III Standard and she knew the 1st accused. She states that on the date of the incident at about 2.00 p.m., her mother asked her to take the food-grains for the purpose of grinding to the flour mill of the father of accused No.1 and when she went to the floor mill at 2.00 p.m., the 1st accused was alone in the flour mill and he asked her to come inside the flour mill and thereafter closed the door and windows and asked her to remove her clothes. When she refused, the 1st accused removed his clothes and pushed his male organ into her mouth and asked her to suck it. It is thereafter, at once the 1st accused removed the male organ and tried to commit forcible sexual intercourse and when she cried, he put the clothes into her mouth. She states that the accused confined her in her flour mill from 2.00 to 4.00 p.m. on the day. It is thereafter that the 1st accused gave threat not to disclose the incident to anybody and left her. While she was returning, she met her mother-P.W.2 and informed about this incident. So, the scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 reveal the only discrepancy with regard to an act of forcible sexual intercourse and whereas P.W.2 informed the doctor that the injuries are due to fall from the bicycle. Excepting these two circumstances, there is no such inconsistency so as to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecutrix. So far as the act for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is concerned, it is evident from the certificates produced at Exs.P10 and 11 that the injuries were on the vulva region. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, it reveals that at the time of the incident, the 1st accused placed his male organ on the private part and nowhere she states that there was penetration of the male organ. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, it reveals that at the time of the incident, the 1st accused placed his male organ on the private part and nowhere she states that there was penetration of the male organ. In the absence of any such material in the evidence of P.W.1, it cannot be said that there was penetration and commission of forcible sexual intercourse. In the circumstances, in my considered opinion, the offence falls within the purview of Section 376 r/w. 511 IPC. The medical evidence does not support the version of the prosecution so far as commission of forcible sexual intercourse and so also, P.W.1 does not say anything about the penetration. 15. Though for the offence under Sections 377 and 376 IPC., no corroboration is necessary, but at the same time, it is relevant to note that P.W.1 had sustained injury on her private part i.e., vulva region and this circumstance in the medical evidence supports the version of the prosecution. 16. The Apex Court in the decision reported in 1983 Crl.L.J. 1096 [Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat] held; “Corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? To do so is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a mala dominated society.” So, if the principles laid-down by the Apex Court in cases wherever an offence of rape or sodomy are committed, I do not think that the evidence of the prosecutrix needs any corroboration. Anyhow, the perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is consistent so far as the act for the offence punishable under Section 377 and 376 r/w. 511 IPC are concerned. 17. The Trial Court has convicted appellant No.1 for the offence under Section 376 IPC. But had failed to see that there was no penetration and the medical evidence does not support the version of the prosecution and so also, P.W.1. 17. The Trial Court has convicted appellant No.1 for the offence under Section 376 IPC. But had failed to see that there was no penetration and the medical evidence does not support the version of the prosecution and so also, P.W.1. In that view of the matter, the conviction of the 1st appellant by the trial Court for the offence under Section 376 IPC is illegal and to that extent, his conviction is to be set aside. The 1st accused has to be held guilty for the offence under Section 376 r/w. 511 IPC and the material so far as the offence under Section 377 IPC is sufficient to hold that accused No.1 is guilty for the said offence. 18. So far as accused Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, it is consistent version of P.W.2 that after the incident of sexual assault by accused No.1, when she went to the house of the accused, it is stated that accused Nos.2 to 4 caused the threat of danger to their lives in case if a Police complaint is lodged. The fact that there is a delay in lodging the complaint is also a circumstance which supports the version of the prosecution so far as the offence under Section 506 IPC. I am of the opinion that there is no necessity to corroborate the version of P.W.2, as it is but natural that after the incident, the mother of the victim would approach accused 2 to 4 with a grievance about the sexual assault by accused No.1. In that view of the matter, I do not find any grounds to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2 and merely because P.W.1 stated that her mother went to the parents of the accused itself is not sufficient to discard the evidence as P.W.1 is not an eye-witness so far as the offence under Section 506 IPC as against accused 2 to 4 are concerned. In the circumstances, the conviction of accused Nos.2 to 4 by the trial Court is just and proper. 19. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the 1st accused is already in custody for more than 2 years, he was aged about 17 years at the time of the incident and the victim was aged about 10 years at time of the incident. 19. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the 1st accused is already in custody for more than 2 years, he was aged about 17 years at the time of the incident and the victim was aged about 10 years at time of the incident. So, here is the case wherein the prosecutrix is a girl of tender age and the 1st accused is a boy of teen age. There was an attempt to commit forcible sexual intercourse by accused No.1 and he was not successful in his attempt to complete the offence. It is in the context of these circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the decision referred to above. It is a case under Section 376 r/w. 511 IPC. The accused had lost his job and the incident took place 7 years prior to the disposal of the matter. The Apex Court held that the accused must have suffered great humiliation in the society and in the circumstances for the said offence, the sentence of 2 1/2 years rigorous imprisonment was reduced to 15 months. He also relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1980 S.C. 249 [Phul Singh Vs. State of Haryana], wherein for the offence under Section 376 IPC., the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 4 years was reduced to 2 years on the ground that the accused was in early 20’s and was not a habitual offender and the signs of repentance were seen. 20. So, looking to the facts and circumstances in the decisions referred to above, it is relevant to note that after commission of the offence, the 1st accused consumed insecticide and was admitted in the hospital for more than 15 days. It is on 29.06.2001 his statement was recorded by the Police Constable, a case was registered against him for the offence of attempt to commit suicide. So, the fact that he made an effort to commit suicide itself is a circumstance, which indicates that he repented for the act he did. Apart from this, he was aged about 17 years at the time of the incident and at an unfortunate time, when he was alone in the flour mill, the prosecutrix came there and in these peculiar circumstances the incident occurred. Apart from this, he was aged about 17 years at the time of the incident and at an unfortunate time, when he was alone in the flour mill, the prosecutrix came there and in these peculiar circumstances the incident occurred. So, taking into consideration the age of accused No.1 and the circumstances in which the incident occurred in addition to the fact that the 1st accused repented for the act done and attempted to commit suicide, I think the maximum leniency should be shown so far as the offence under Section 376 r/w. Section 511 IPC is concerned. 21. The learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon the decision of the High Court of Patna, reported in 2002 Crl.L.J. 3344 [Mohan Ojha Vs. State of Bihar], wherein the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 377 IPC, wherein there was an allegation of a minor boy was subjected to carnal intercourse by the accused and in the circumstances, the High Court reduced the sentence to 11/2 years on the ground that the accused was 22 years at the time of the incident. 22. In AIR 1983 Supreme Court 323 [Fazal Rab Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar] for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC., against a young boy, no force was used. The sentence of 3 years imprisonment was reduced to 6 months. 23. In AIR 1974 Supreme Court 2352 [Chitranjan Dass Vs. State of U.P.], for an offender, who was a highly educated and cultured individual was suffering from mental aberration when he committed an act of sodomy. It is in these circumstances that the Apex Court held that the period of sentence already undergone for more than 2 months was confirmed and the accused was released. So, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the decision referred to above, in addition to the fact that the accused was aged about 17 years at the time of the incident, I think that the imprisonment has to be reduced. 24. So far as accused 2 to 4 are concerned, they are aged. Accused No.2 was aged about 51 years, accused No.3 was 45 years and accused No.4 was 61 years. The incident is of the year 2001 and 8 years have been elapsed and accused Nos.2 to 4 are now more than 57, 52 and 68 years or so respectively. So far as accused 2 to 4 are concerned, they are aged. Accused No.2 was aged about 51 years, accused No.3 was 45 years and accused No.4 was 61 years. The incident is of the year 2001 and 8 years have been elapsed and accused Nos.2 to 4 are now more than 57, 52 and 68 years or so respectively. So taking into consideration their age and the fact that they are defending the case since 2001, I think it would be just and proper to award enhanced fine by exempting the sentence of imprisonment. In that view of the matter, I answer the point partly in affirmative and partly in negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part, the conviction of appellant No1/accused No.1 for the offence under Section 376 IPC is set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. But, he is convicted for the offence under Section 376 r/w. 511 IPC and he is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay the fine of Rs.20,000-00 as ordered by the trial Court, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the said offence. For the offence under Section on 377 IPC., appellant No.1/accused No.1 is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 1/2years and to pay the fine of Rs.20,00-00, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Appellant No.1/accused No.1 is entitled to set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The sentence as against Appellant No.1/accused No.1 shall run concurrently. If he has already undergone the sentence of 2 years, he shall not be taken into custody. So far as, appellant Nos.2 to 4/accused Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, confirming their conviction for the offence under Section 506 IPC., each of them are ordered to pay the fine of Rs.10,000-00, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. The fine amount shall be credited to the State.