Judgment : 1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 31.7.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 29 of 2008 by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur whereby accused/appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, to suffer further RI for fifteen days on the first count and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer further RI for six months on the second count. 2. Prosecutrix, aged about 13 years, is a mentally challenged girl while appellant was her neighbourer. On 12.10.2007 the prosecutrix was alone in her house as her mother had gone on labour work; brother was away from house and her sister had gone to school. At about 01.30 p.m. appellant entered her house and committed rape on the prosecutrix. Her widow mother Asha returned from work in the evening. When in the midnight Asha found prosecutrix weeping, she enquired with her and the prosecutrix disclosed the incident of rape to her. On the next day in the morning, Asha (PW 1) reported the matter and the police machinery was set in motion. In the course of investigation, Investigating Officer drew spot panchanama on 14.10.2007 and clothes of the prosecutrix were seized under seizure panchanama. Accused was arrested and both the prosecutrix as well as accused were referred for medical examination. Dr Gavai examined them. Subsequently, accused came to be charge-sheeted. 3. Charge for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code was framed. It was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Prosecution examined in all nine witnesses in support of its case while no defence evidence was led. On the basis of evidence led and after hearing the parties, learned trial Court held the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 452 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and upon conviction, sentenced him, as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. K.S. Narwade, learned counsel appointed through HC Legal Aid Services, Sub-committee at Nagpur to represent the appellant and Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Hence, this appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. K.S. Narwade, learned counsel appointed through HC Legal Aid Services, Sub-committee at Nagpur to represent the appellant and Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the oral, documentary evidence and impugned judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge. 6. P.W.2 prosecutrix has deposed that on the relevant day in between 01.00 and 02.00 pm accused (her neighbourer) entered her house when there was nobody in her house; he offered currency note of Rs.50/-to her and kissed her. She did not accept the currency note. Accused then felled her down; removed his full-pant; lifted her middy-frock and started inserting his penis in her private part and was kissing her continuously. Thereafter her brother Gaurav returned home and on seeing him, accused ran away. She narrated the incident when she was going to sleep to her mother. She deposed that she had informed the police that the accused raped her and committed forcible intercourse with her. P.W. 1 Asha (mother of prosecutrix) deposed about the incident as was quoted to her by prosecutrix. She deposed that after having dinner when they were going to sleep, prosecutrix narrated her the entire episode weeping. She then deposed about further steps taken by her to inform Police Patil and lodge the police report. 7. P.W. 3 Wasuda Punase is a special teacher for dumb and deaf children. On the basis of letter received from police to jot down the grievance of prosecutrix, he made enquiries with her and he deposed about the complete narration made to him by the prosecution as to the rape committed on her by the accused. These three witnesses denied all adverse suggestions given to them through the defence counsel and nothing contrary could be elicited in cross-examination to disbelieve the prosecution story. 8. Prosecution examined Dr Gaurav Gavai (PW 6) deposed that on examination, he found that accused was capable of doing sexual intercourse; he collected his semen and blood sample as well as pubic hair. He noticed injuries on the private part of accused. On examination of prosecutrix, he found that she was not capable of sexual intercourse, but there was sexual intercourse with her. He also noticed multiple lacerations on her private part. He collected vagina swab, pubic hair and blood sample of prosecutrix for the purpose of chemical analysis. He noticed injuries on the private part of accused. On examination of prosecutrix, he found that she was not capable of sexual intercourse, but there was sexual intercourse with her. He also noticed multiple lacerations on her private part. He collected vagina swab, pubic hair and blood sample of prosecutrix for the purpose of chemical analysis. To corroborate the incident of rape, the prosecution has also relied on C.A. Report which indicated that midy-frock belonging to prosecutrix seized during the course of investigation was found stained with human blood. C.A. Report is at exhibit 44. 9. Mr. Narwade argued that had the incident really taken place, the prosecutrix would have informed about the same to her brother Gaurav who is said to have returned home immediately. He further argued that there was no mention in the report about offer of Rs. 50/- alleged to have been given by accused to the prosecutrix and on both these counts, prosecution case should not be believed. The effort made by the counsel for the appellant/accused is lame and the contention deserves outright rejection. It is not expected of a rape victim to narrate the incident to her brother who was then eight years old only. Disclosure of the incident by the prosecutrix, a mentally retarded girl, to her mother depicts her natural action. The omission in her report by Asha (PW 1) as to the offer of Rs. 50/- made by accused to prosecutrix, is not fatal to the prosecution case nor that statement about offer exaggerates the prosecution case. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that there was undue delay in lodging FIR by Asha, mother of prosecutrix. The incident of rape was disclosed to first-informant Asha by her daughter in the late night after they were about to sleep and it was, therefore, not expected of a widow-mother of the victim to approach the police in the mid-night. She lodged the police report at the earliest on the next day morning and thus, the delay is satisfactorily explained. 11. From the evidence led on record, the prosecution has proved that the appellant is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and impugned judgment and order of conviction needs no interference. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant prays for leniency. 11. From the evidence led on record, the prosecution has proved that the appellant is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and impugned judgment and order of conviction needs no interference. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant prays for leniency. He submits that appellant has to maintain his younger brother and mother. He is a poor labourer and has every repentance over his heinous deed. In my opinion, no special or adequate reasons are made out to impose less than the minimum sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment. Order of sentence, therefore, needs no interference. 12. In the result, appeal fails and is dismissed. Fees of the advocate appearing for appellant is quantified at Rs. 1500/- to be paid by the Committee which appointed him.