JUDGMENT : The respondent (hereinafter referred as “accused”) was tried and acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC. Therefore, the State is before this Court. 2. We have heard Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, learned Government Pleader for the State and Sri. M. M. Ashoka, learned counsel for accused. 3. In brief the case of prosecution is as follows: PW.1H.S.Bhavani was a resident of Heggula Village in the year 2006. The house of accused was situate opposite to the house of PW.1. PW.9 (victim girl) is the daughter of PW.1H.S.Bhavani. During the year 2006, the victim was aged about 4 years. The victim was frequently visiting the house of accused. PW.2 H.R. Laxmana is the paternal uncle of victim. He was also a resident of Heggula Village. 4. It is the case of prosecution that on 03.12.2006 at about 1.00 p.m. (afternoon), accused took the victim to his house and removed her inner garment. He had made victim to sit on his lap. PW.1H.S.Bhavani heard hue and cry of victim. She rushed to the house of accused and found that accused had removed inner garment of victim and he had made the victim to sit on his lap. The accused had partly removed his inner garment. After seeing PW.1, accused left the victim and came out of his house. PW.1 took the victim and apprehended the accused. PW.2 H.R. Laxmana was in his house. PW.1 secured her husband. PW.1, her husband and PW.2 took the victim to the jurisdictional Police Station (Shanivarasanthe Police Station). PW.1 lodged the first information. The victim was examined by PW.5Dr. K.N. Harini in General Hospital at Somwarapet. The accused was apprehended by the police and he was produced before the Court. 5. The prosecution has relied on evidence of PW.1 H.S. Bhavani (mother of victim) and PW.9victim. The prosecution has relied on medical evidence of PW.5 Dr. K.N. Harini and evidence of Investigating Officer and other police officials. As already stated, victim was aged about 4 years on the date of incident. When the victim was examined before the Trial Court she was aged about 7 years. The learned Sessions Judge after ascertaining from the victim that she was capable of giving rational answers has held that she was competent to give evidence and recorded her evidence. 6. As already stated, victim was aged about 4 years on the date of incident. When the victim was examined before the Trial Court she was aged about 7 years. The learned Sessions Judge after ascertaining from the victim that she was capable of giving rational answers has held that she was competent to give evidence and recorded her evidence. 6. PW.9 victim has deposed that she was playing with other girls; on the date of incident Vinodannaiah (referring to accused) removed her inner garment in his house. During cross-examination, she has reiterated that accused removed her inner garment. During cross-examination the victim has deposed that there was quarrel between the family members of victim and family members of accused. She has denied the suggestion that accused had not removed her inner garment. She has denied the suggestion that she was told by her mother to give false evidence against accused. On careful consideration of evidence of victim, we find that her evidence is consistent and credible. As already stated, the victim was hardly aged about four years on the date of incident. She was not aware as to what was done to her by the accused. PW.9 victim did not have baser qualities of life like ill will, animosity and vengeance. She did not have animosity against accused to give false evidence against him. She has clearly deposed before the Court what was done to her by the accused. We do not find any embellishment or exaggeration in the evidence of PW.9victim. The evidence of victim that accused had removed her inner garment is consistent and credible. The learned Sessions Judge has assigned untenable reasons to discredit evidence of PW.9 victim. 7. PW.1H.S.Bhavani is the mother of victim. PW.1 has deposed that in the year 2006 PW.1, her husband and victim (PW.9) were residing in Heggula village. PW.1 and her husband were working in a coffee plantation. The house of accused was situate opposite to the house of PW.1. On 03.12.2006 at about 1.00 p.m. (afternoon) PW.1 was in her house, so also victim. At that time, accused called victim. The victim went to the house of accused and after 15 minutes PW.1 heard cry of her daughter (victim). PW.1 immediately rushed to the house of accused. The accused had made victim to sit on his lap. The accused had removed inner garment of victim. At that time, accused called victim. The victim went to the house of accused and after 15 minutes PW.1 heard cry of her daughter (victim). PW.1 immediately rushed to the house of accused. The accused had made victim to sit on his lap. The accused had removed inner garment of victim. The accused had also partly removed his inner garment. The accused was about to commit rape on the victim. The accused, on seeing PW.1, left victim (her daughter) and came out of the house. PW.1 brought victim and also held the accused. At that time PW.2 H.R.Laxman was present in the house of PW.1. PW.1 conveyed the information to her husband and secured him to her house. PW.1, husband of PW.1 and PW.2 took the victim to the police station. PW.2 wrote the first information. PW.1 attested the same and first information was lodged. She has identified the first information as Ex.P1. 8. The police sent the victim to General Hospital, Shanivarapet. Thereafter the victim was taken to General Hospital at Somwarpet. The lady medical officer examined victim. On the following day, police visited the place of incident (house of accused) and inspected the spot and prepared a report. On the following day, the police came and collected clothes and inner garment of victim. 9. During cross-examination, PW.1 H.S. Bhavani had admitted that she knew father of accused namely Lingaraju. PW.1 had deposed that at the relevant point of time victim was studying in LKG. On the date of incident she had not gone to school. Before the date of incident family members of PW.1 and family members of accused were cordial. The children of PW.2 and victim used to visit house of accused now and then. On the date of incident at about 1.00 p.m. (afternoon) the parents of accused had come to their house to take lunch. After taking lunch, parents of accused left their house and accused was alone in the house. The victim went to the house of accused because she was called by accused. When PW.1 heard cry of victim, PW.1 was sitting at threshold of her house. PW.1 alone entered the house of accused. Soon after seeing the victim she took victim and brought her from the house of accused. In the meanwhile, accused was trying to flee from that place. He was held by PW.1. When PW.1 heard cry of victim, PW.1 was sitting at threshold of her house. PW.1 alone entered the house of accused. Soon after seeing the victim she took victim and brought her from the house of accused. In the meanwhile, accused was trying to flee from that place. He was held by PW.1. Other person came and held accused and took him to Police Station. The distance between the Heggula village and jurisdictional Police Station (Shanivarasanthe Police Station) is about 8 km. During cross-examination PW.1 has denied the suggestion that her husband had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/ from the father of accused and he had stopped going to the work of father of accused. She has denied the suggestion that on 02.12.2006 there was a quarrel between husband of PW.1 and the father of accused. She has denied the suggestion that there was enemity between the father of accused and the husband of PW.1 and they had foisted a case of attempted rape against accused. She has denied the suggestion that on the date of incident or before the date of incident, victim had not gone to the house of accused. 10. PW.2 H.R. Laxmana is the younger brother of husband of PW.1. In other words, he is the paternal uncle of victim. PW.2 has deposed that on the date of incident, PW.1H.S.Bhavani brought victim, she was in disturbed mood, she told PW.2 that accused had committed rape on the victim. Thereafter, PW.1 and PW.2 and another person by name Subramani came to Shanivarasanthe Police Station and lodged first information. During cross-examination PW.2 has deposed that house of accused is situate opposite to the house of PW.2. He has denied the suggestion that there was enemity between accused and the father of victim. He has denied the suggestion that the father of victim had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/ from the father of accused. He has denied the suggestion that there was quarrel between father of victim and father of accused. 11. It is seen from the tenor of cross-examination that accused had made an unsuccessful attempt to discredit the evidence of PW.1 H.S. Bhavani and PW.2 H.R. Laxmana. The accused has unsuccessfully contended that there was enemity between the father of victim and the father of accused and that father of victim had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/from the father of accused. The accused has unsuccessfully contended that there was enemity between the father of victim and the father of accused and that father of victim had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/from the father of accused. Therefore, PW.1, PW.2 and husband of PW.1 had foisted a case of attempted rape against accused. In our considered opinion, this defence is untenable. As already stated victim was aged about 4 years. She had not developed basic qualities of life like illwill, animosity, vengeance etc., Her evidence is natural. Therefore, contention of accused that victim has given a false evidence cannot be accepted. The evidence of victim finds corroboration from evidence of PW.5 Dr. K.N. Harini, who was working as lady medical officer in General Hospital at Somwarpet. 12. PW.5Dr.K.N.Harini has deposed that on 03.12.2006 at 8.00 p.m. when she was in the hospital, Police Constable and parents of victim had brought victim to the hospital. PW.5 examined victim. She did not find external injuries. There was white fluid in vagina and there was redness in the vagina of victim. She did not find other injuries. She had submitted a report. During cross-examination PW.5 has denied the suggestion that she had not examined victim and she has given false evidence. PW.5 Dr. K.N. Harini was working as a lady medical officer in General Hospital at Somwarpet. She did not know the accused. She had examined victim and she had given her opinion. We have no reasons to suspect evidence of PW.5. 13. The accused was apprehended on the same day and he was produced before the Committal Magistrate on following day viz., 04.12.2006. The evidence of PW.1 (mother of victim) finds substantial corroboration from the contents of first information which was lodged at 6.30 p.m. on 03.12.2006. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that distance between jurisdictional police (Shanivarasanthe Police Station) and place of incident is about 10 km. PW.1H.S.Bhavani was shocked after the incident. The victim was also in a state of shock due to the acts committed by accused. In the circumstances they had taken some time to compose themselves to visit police station to lodge first information. Therefore, the accused cannot contend that there was inordinate delay in lodging the first information. 14. The learned Sessions Judge has erroneously suspected the evidence of PW.1H.S.Bhavani. In the circumstances they had taken some time to compose themselves to visit police station to lodge first information. Therefore, the accused cannot contend that there was inordinate delay in lodging the first information. 14. The learned Sessions Judge has erroneously suspected the evidence of PW.1H.S.Bhavani. The learned Sessions Judge has made erroneous observations that PW.9victim has admitted that there was enemity between family members of accused and family members of PW.9victim. The learned Sessions Judge had ignored the settled principles of law relating to appreciation of evidence in the case of sexual assault on women and children of tender age. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to notice that PW.1H.S.Bhavani had no motive to falsely implicate accused by exposing her daughter of tender age as a victim of sexual assault. 15. The learned Sessions Judge has held that evidence of victim (PW.9) is not specific. The learned Sessions Judge has held that victim was hardly aged five years at the time of incident. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded an erroneous finding that evidence of victim that accused removed her inner garment is not sufficient to hold that accused had intention to commit rape on her. The learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of PW.9 victim, PW.1mother of victim and medical evidence of Dr. K.N. Harini. The accused had removed inner garment of victim. The accused has touched the vagina of victim. In our considered opinion, the accused had outraged the modesty of victim. Therefore, we hold accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. 16. The accused had committed an offence when he was aged about 18 years. The victim was aged about 5 years. The accused does not bare criminal antecedents. He has chances of reformation. At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that victim was hardly aged about 5 years, she had suffered trauma due to the acts committed by accused. Therefore, we deem it proper to sentence the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.50,000/, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. We also direct the payment of compensation of Rs.40,000/out of fine amount to be deposited by the accused. In the result, we pass the following ORDER : The appeal is accepted in part. The impugned judgment is modified. We also direct the payment of compensation of Rs.40,000/out of fine amount to be deposited by the accused. In the result, we pass the following ORDER : The appeal is accepted in part. The impugned judgment is modified. The impugned judgment of acquittal of accused of offence punishable under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC is confirmed. The accused is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.50,000/, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. Out of fine amount to be deposited by accused, a sum of Rs.40,000/shall be invested in the name of victim Nisha (PW.9) in any nationalized bank for such period till she attains the age of majority. The period of detention if any undergone by accused during trial is given set off under Section 428 Cr. P. C. Office is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the trial Court to secure accused and implement the sentence in terms of this judgment.