JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.5.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 150/2005 whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. and has sentenced him to 10 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default further undergo 1 year's imprisonment. 3. As per the case set up by the prosecution, on 12.8.2005, the complainant Om Prakash Kachhawaha lodged a written report at the Police Station Mathania alleging inter alia that on 6.8.2005, daughter of his uncle Sh. Gobar Ram, namely, Ms. Kamla alias Kammu aged 7 years had gone to bring green grass for the bufallow. While Ms. Kamla was taking grass in the field of Bal at that time, Panna Ram came there and took him in the crop of 'Bajri' and committed forcible intercourse with her. After the said incident, she started bleeding. Her grand-mother Soni Devi asked her about her illness, but she did not tell her. Thereafter her mother and father came to the house and on seeing her condition, she was taken to Mathania Hospital, but there also she did not narrate the story to anybody. Thereafter on Sunday, the elder sister of the prosecutrix came to her parents' place, on which the prosecutrix stated the whole incident to her and thereafter the present report was lodged. 4. After investigation, the police filed challan against the appellant for offence under Section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. 5. The learned trial Court framed charge for offence under Section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. against the appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. At the trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses in support of his case. The accused in his statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegation levelled against him and 3 witnesses were examined in defence. 7. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 29.5.2006 convicted and sentenced the appellant as above. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant does not press this appeal on merits so far as conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. is concerned and argued on the point of sentence only. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 29.5.2006 convicted and sentenced the appellant as above. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant does not press this appeal on merits so far as conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. is concerned and argued on the point of sentence only. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accused appellant is in custody since 14.8.2007 and thus, he has served more than 5 years of sentence and further more, the F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of 6 days for which no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 749/2007 decided on 22.2.2011 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court while reducing the sentence from 10 years to the period already undergone by the accused viz. 31/2 years for offence under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. has enhanced the amount of fine to Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the victim. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor does not seriously oppose this contention and prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. The appeal is thus, dismissed as far as conviction is concerned, as not pressed. 11. It is well settled proposition of law that for the commission of offence under Section 376 I.P.C. less than 7 years' imprisonment may be awarded for the reasons to be recorded. In this case, the appellant is behind bars for last about 51/2 years and the F.I.R. in the present case has been lodged after a delay of 6 days. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, the sentence awarded to the appellant deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him in place of 10 years' R.I. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, the sentence awarded to the appellant deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him in place of 10 years' R.I. 12. Accordingly this appeal is partly allowed with the modification of the impugned judgment of Court below to the extent that while upholding the conviction of the accused appellant for offence under Section 376(2)(f) I.P.C., the sentence awarded to the accused appellant for the aforesaid offences is reduced to be period already undergone by him, subject to condition that fine imposed by the learned Court below shall stand increased by Rs. 50,000/-. The accused appellant shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case subject to payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- already imposed by the learned trial Court as directed above. On deposit of the amount of fine Rs. 55,000/- as directed above, the same shall be paid to the prosecutrix Ms. Kamla alias Kammu D/o Sh Gobar Ram by way of compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.Appeal partly allowed. *******