JUDGMENT 1. - The accused-appellant Dinesh @ Dinesh Kumar @ Suresh has preferred this criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 1.2.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Bali, District Pali in Sessions Case No. 34/2006, whereby he convicted the accused-appellant under Section 376 I.P.C. to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' imprisonment. 2. The brief facts of the case, giving rise to the present criminal appeal are that a written report (Ex.P-1) was filed by PW-1 Hakka Ram, the informant, to the SHO, Police Station Khiwara on 24.8.2006 regarding the occurrence which had taken place on 17.8.2006 to the effect on 14.8.2006 the complainant and his wife Sukhi had gone to Ramdeora and their children stayed at home. It was alleged that on 17.8.2006 between 6.00 and 7.00 P.M. accused Dinesh committed rape on his daughter Ganga aged about 15 years and on 22.8.2006 when the complainant returned from Ramdeora, he lodged the complaint. 3. On the basis of this report, a case under Section 376 I.P.C. was registered and after usual investigation the police submitted challan against the appellant in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Desuri, District Pali from where the case was transferred to the Court of learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bali who committed the case to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Bali, District Pali, for trial. Charge under Section 376 I.P.C. was framed against the accused-appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case. After usual trial, the learned trial Court convicted the accused-appellant under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him as indicated above. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 1.2.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Bali, District Pali the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant Dinesh @ Dinesh Kumar @ Suresh contended that the learned trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence against the appellant and in the present case, the incident took place on 17.8.2006 at about 6.00 to 7.00 P.M. and the F.I.R. was lodged on 24.8.2006 and no satisfactory explanation was given by the prosecution for such in ordinate delay in filing the report. 7. 7. The learned counsel further contended that the age of the prosecutrix Ganga was above 16 years and the offence was committed with her consent and further there was no signs of resistance because no injury was found on the body of Ganga as per PW-8 Dr. Vandana Agrawal. Therefore, the learned trial Court erred in convicting the appellant Dinesh for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and, he further drew my attention towards various contradictions in the statement of witnesses adduced during the course of trial. 8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently defended the judgment of the learned trial Court and argued that in the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. generally the parents of the prosecutrix take time to register the criminal case, and this is the general tendency in the joint families in India. Therefore, no substantial delay has been caused in lodging the F.I.R. 9. I have perused the record and the statement of witnesses recorded during trial. 10. The counsel for the appellant drew my attention towards come contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses but the variations and discrepancies in details, and the contradictions in narration and embellishments in non-essential parts cannot militate against veracity of the core of testimony, if there is an impress of truth and conformity to probability in substantial fabric of prosecution story. Even the exaggeration in the prosecution's case about the commencement of the incident may not detract from the incident that was proved by eye-witnesses. Conduct of the witness is one of the most important and relevant factor while examining the trustworthiness of the witnesses. 11. In this particular case, the accused-appellant during the cross-examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. took no specific defence and only stated that witnesses are deposing against him due to enmity but no evidence of enmity was produced by the accused-appellant. The learned trial Court further appreciated the evidence of PW-7 Shanti Bai to whom the prosecutrix's sister Chanda had narrated the incident just after the incident and then she told Chanda that after returning of her parents they can report the matter. The learned trial Court further appreciated the evidence of PW-8 Dr. Vandana Agrawal. As per her statement there were sufficient evidence of the sexual assault and thus, the learned trial Court relied on her evidence also. 12. The learned trial Court further appreciated the evidence of PW-8 Dr. Vandana Agrawal. As per her statement there were sufficient evidence of the sexual assault and thus, the learned trial Court relied on her evidence also. 12. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the judgment of the learned trial Court, regarding conviction, does not suffer from any infirmity and the learned trial Court did not err in convicting the accused appellant under Section 376 I.P.C. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court, to the appellant was 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' imprisonment. 14. The learned counsel submitted that the accused was arrested on 25.8.2006 and he is serving sentence since then. Therefore, he may be released on the basis of the sentence already undergone. 15. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. 16. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of the accused-appellant is reduced to five and a half years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' imprisonment. Thus, while maintaining the conviction, the sentence of the accused-appellant is reduced as indicated above and the appeal is partly allowed.Appeal partly allowed. *******