JUDGMENT 1. - Accused appellant Julfikar s/o Afzal Khan , b/c Musalman, r/o Hathunia , Police Station, Pratapgarh, District Chitorgarh, has preferred this appeal, against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 06.02.2006 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, District Chittorgarh, in Sessions Case No. 145/2005, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused appellant under section 376(1) IPC to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' imprisonment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.09.2005 a FIR was lodged by one Prem Lata to the effect that at about 12.00PM, after school hours where she works as Aanganwari Assistant she went to her Well to collect fodder. Neighbouring to their field is the field of Afzal whose son Julfikar called her for the purpose of assisting him in loading the fodder. When she reached the boundary of Afzal's field, Julfikar caught hold of her and she tried to struggle but he threatened her with dire consequences. Thereafter he committed rape on her. When she returned home, she telephoned her husband and also narrated the incident to her mother in- law . On return of her husband,he lodged the report. FIR was registered and investigation commenced. Charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under section 376 IPC. Thereafter, charge under section 376 (1) IPC was framed against the appellant which he denied and claimed to be tried. 3. During the trial, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 18 documents. The accused appellant was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. However, no evidence was led in defence. 4. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge, vide judgment and order dated 06.02.2006, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated above. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of learned District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, District Chittorgarh, dated 06.02.2006, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant does not press the order of conviction recorded against the appellant by the learned trial court and only argued on the point of sentence only. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the accused is behind the bars w.e.f. 25.09.2005. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant does not press the order of conviction recorded against the appellant by the learned trial court and only argued on the point of sentence only. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the accused is behind the bars w.e.f. 25.09.2005. Thus, he has served more than 5 years' sentence and the age of the prosecutrix at the relevant time , was 20 years and there was no injuries on the body of the prosecutrix so as to prove any resistance or struggle. The learned counsel prayed that the sentence of ten years may be reduced to six years. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following judgments in support of his case: 1. Chhigan Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [2007(1) CJ (Raj.)Cr. 391] 2. Ramotar v. State of Rajasthan [2007 (1) CJ (Raj.) Cr.,239] 3. Ramveer v. State of Rajasthan [2007 (1) CJ (Raj.) Cr.267] 4. Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2006) 4 SCC, 347] 5. Ravinder v. State of M.P. [(2006) 9 SCC,590] 6. State of Chhattisgarh v. Lekhram [2006 DNJ (SC) 418 ] 7. Ramotar v. State of Rajasthan [2007 (1) CJ (Raj.) Cr.239] 8. Ravinder v. State of M.P. [ (2006) 9 SCC 590 ] 9. Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana [ (2006) 4 SCC 347 ]. 7. In view of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is a well settled proposition of law that for the commission of offence under section 376 (1), less than 7 years' imprisonment may be awarded for reasons to be recorded. In this case, as the age of the prosecutrix was 20 years and no signs of struggle or resistance were found on the body of the prosecutrix, therefore, looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment of ten years is reduced to 5 years. The sentence of fine, as imposed by the learned trial court, is also maintained. 8. The appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******