JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. is directed by the accused-appellant Pap Singh S/o Devi Singh, Rajput, R/o Vida Golia Sawaou Padainsingh, Police Station Balotra against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.4.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fact Track), Balotra (for short "the trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 23/2004, convicting the accused-appellant Pap Singh for commission of offence under Sections 376 and 341 I.P.C. and sentencing him, for offence tinder Section 376 I.P.C. to undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of the fine to undergo further one year's imprisonment; and for offence under Section 341 I.P.C. to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further 15 days' imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this appeal, are that on 20.5.2004 at 2.45 P.M. complainant Karna Ram S/o Bharmal, Prajapat, R/o Saziyali Moolraj Pratham, P.S. Balotra (PW-6)-father of the prosecutrix Ms. Pushpa lodged a written report (Ex.P-2) at Police Station, Balotra, district-Barmer, inter alia, stating that on 20.5.2004 his daughter Ms. Pushpa, aged 12 years went to a grocery shop at around 9 O'clock in the morning for purchasing some goods. That grocery shop is said to be situated 2 kms away from his house. Ms. Pushpa was accompanied by Ms. Prem, aged 8 years, who is his 'dohiti' (Daughter's daughter). On the way, accused-appellant Pap Singh S/o Devi Singh met them, who was grazing goats. He enticingly took the girl with him and forcibly committed rape upon her. Upon her crying, accompanying girl rushed to the house and told the incident while weeping. Thereupon, the complainant Karna Ram reached at that place, the accused-appellant Pap,Singh had ran away and Ms Pushpa was found bleeding and unconscious. 3. Upon this written report Ex.P-2, Police registered F.I.R. No. 190/2004 (Ex.P-8) at Police Station, Balotra, District-Barmer for offence under Sections 341, 376 I.P.C. and started investigation. During the course of investigation, Police arrested accused-appellant Pap Singh on 21.5.2004 (Ex.P-11) and got medically examined accused-appellant on 22.5.2004 vide Ex.P-12 as also Ms. Pushpa (the prosecutrix) on 20.5.2004 vide Ex.P-13. The cloths of accused-appellant as also of the prosecutrix were sent for chemical analysis, for which F.S.L. report (Ex.P-14) was obtained. During the course of investigation, Police arrested accused-appellant Pap Singh on 21.5.2004 (Ex.P-11) and got medically examined accused-appellant on 22.5.2004 vide Ex.P-12 as also Ms. Pushpa (the prosecutrix) on 20.5.2004 vide Ex.P-13. The cloths of accused-appellant as also of the prosecutrix were sent for chemical analysis, for which F.S.L. report (Ex.P-14) was obtained. Statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded by Police. 4. After due investigation, on 5.8.2004 Police filed challan against the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 341, 342, 376 I.P.C. Before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Balotra, who assigned it to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra for trial. 5. The trial Court, on 9.8.2004 framed charges for offence punishable under Sections 341 and 376 I.P.C. against the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant denied commission of the offences alleged against him and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 16 documents. Statements of accused person was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he rebutted occurrence of alleged incident. The accused-appellant contended that there is enmity on account of damage to Gwar crop by grazing of goat herd by Devi Singh and witnesses are deposing against him out of enmity. It was stated that he had gone for erecting 'jhunpa' at dhani of Rana Ram, Deda Ram Jat situated at boundary of Sambhra village, where he stayed. Rameshwar Nai and Mangla Jat were also with him in erecting the 'jhunpa' at the dhani. He has one goat herd at Khushal Chaudhary's well at Bithuja and Devi Singh was grazing the herd. 7. In defence. On behalf of the accused-appellant DW-1 Khushal Ram, DW-2 Rana Ram, DW-3 Rameshwar and DW-4 Bhika Ram were examined. The statement of the prosecutrix before Police (Ex.D-1) and Police Statement of Karna Ram'(Ex.D-2) were also produced in defence. 8. After scrutiny of the material on record, appreciation of prosecution evidence as well as defence evidence placed on the record and the statement of accused-appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing both the sides; learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 6.4.2005 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid. 9. Aggrieved by the conviction and imposition of sentence vide impugned judgment dated 6.4.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.), Balotra, the accused-appellant has preferred this appeal. 10. 9. Aggrieved by the conviction and imposition of sentence vide impugned judgment dated 6.4.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.), Balotra, the accused-appellant has preferred this appeal. 10. Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor, perused the impugned judgment as well as record of the trial Court. 11. In appeal, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant Firstly argued on merits and contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in contrary to law and against facts and circumstances of the case on the record. He contended that the testimony of PW- 1 Ms. Pushpa appears to be false. The statement of the prosecutrix Ms. Pushpa is not corroborated by any other witness of the prosecution in the circumstances of the case. 12. It is contended that the learned trial Court committed grave error in relying upon statement of PW-1 Ms. Pushpa. There are major contradictions, improvements and omissions in the Statement of the prosecution witnesses on material points and the learned trial Court has committed error in relying upon them. 13. He further submitted that the learned trial judge committed error in not believing testimony of defence witnesses Khushal Ram (DW-1), Rana Ram (DW-2), Rameshwar (DW-3) and Bhikha Ram (DW-4), though all these are independent witnesses and no reason has been given by the learned trial Judge for not accepting their evidence. 14. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant further argued that most important witness of this case, Ms. Prem, who said to have witnessed alleged occurrence, she was not produced by the prosecution. 15. Lastly, learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the accused-appellant does not want to press the appeal on point of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court and prayed that the appeal may be considered on the point of sentence. It is submitted that accused-appellant Pap Singh is behind the bars since 21.5.2005 and thus, he has served more than eight years imprisonment al-id therefore, it is prayed that the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused-appellant. 16. Alternatively, it is submitted that in case his sentence is not reduced then at least period of imprisonment, to be undergone in default of payment of fine of Rs. 16. Alternatively, it is submitted that in case his sentence is not reduced then at least period of imprisonment, to be undergone in default of payment of fine of Rs. 5000/-, may be reduced to three months' imprisonment instead of one year's imprisonment. 17. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment impugned passed by the learned trial Court and contended that the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court by considering evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as defence is correct. There is no infirmity, illegality or material contradiction and as such, it does not calls for any interference by this Court. 18. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for rival parties and carefully perused the evidence on record of the case and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below. 19. In this instant case, the prosecution evidence is cogent and trustworthy and I have no reason to disbelieve evidence of the prosecutrix Ms. Pushpa, corroborated by medical evidence. From the scrutiny of evidence and findings given by learned trial Court, I am satisfied that there is no error in passing impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and the learned counsel for the accused-appellant was right in not pressing the present appeal on merits. 20. So far as reduction of sentence is concerned, I find no special reasons to reduce the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court. Suffice is to mention that the quantum of sentence is required to be determined by Court looking to peculiar facts and circumstances of the case concerned and that may differ fact to fact and case to case. 21. In the instant matter, heinous crime of rape was committed ruthlessly with a minor girl of about 12 years' age. In such circumstances, I do not find anything wrong with the findings of conviction and sentence awarded. Hence, conviction as also sentence passed against the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 6.4.2005 is maintained. 22. However, in the interest of justice, it is ordered that in default of payment of fine of Rs. 5000/-, the accused-appellant shall undergo three months' imprisonment instead of one year's imprisonment. 23. With this direction, the appeal filed by the accused-appellant is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******