JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present appellant, as per prosecution case, on 13.8.2007 at about 6.45 A.M. had raped a girl child aged 10 years (name of the girl child is being withheld to protect the identity of the victim and hereinafter she shall be called as the prosecutrix). 2. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Laxmangarh vide impugned judgment dated 19.4.2008 held the appellant guilty of offence under Section 376 IPC and considering that act of the appellant falls under Section 376(2)(f) IPC as victim was less than 12 years of age. Having convicted the appellant for above said offence, vide a separate order of even date, the trial Judge had awarded sentence of life imprisonment upon the appellant alongwith a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo one year simple imprisonment. 3. In the present appeal, the appellant has assailed conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the trial court. 4. Rajesh Kumar Saini (P.W.1) on 13.8.2007 at 8.00 AM had presented written report (Ex.P.1) before the SHO, Police station Rajgarh (Alwar). In the said report (Ex.P.1) he stated that on 13.8.2007 at about 6.45 AM her niece, the prosecutrix, was going from the house to attend school. While she reached on Sarai Road Gate of the Bus Stand, the present appellant after gagging her mouth had taken her behind the bushes near the hand-pump. Thereafter, after removing her undergarments he had committed rape. The blood was oozing from the private parts of the prosecutrix and at that time, complainant alongwith Raju had apprehended the accused at the spot. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was brought to the hospital. 5. Prosecutrix herself appeared in court as P.W.2. The trial court before permitting her to step into the witness box, had asked few questions to verify competence of the witness. Having satisfied itself that the victim/prosecutrix is capable to testify, the trial court had recorded her statement. The prosecutrix in court stated that on 13.8.2007 at about quarter to seven in the morning she was going towards the school when a person came, gagged her mouth, took her behind the bushes and committed rape. She further stated that the appellant had been apprehended at the spot. The prosecutrix identified the appellant in the court. 6. The prosecutrix in court stated that on 13.8.2007 at about quarter to seven in the morning she was going towards the school when a person came, gagged her mouth, took her behind the bushes and committed rape. She further stated that the appellant had been apprehended at the spot. The prosecutrix identified the appellant in the court. 6. Complainant Rajesh Kumar Saini (P.W.1) and Raju (P.W.6) have deposed in court that in the morning while they were going to Bazar, they apprehended the accused at the spot while committing rape upon the prosecutrix. 7. Dr. Phool Singh Chaudhary (P.W.8) on 13.8.2007 on the day of occurrence itself had examined the present accused-appellant. The Doctor noted that there were injuries on the body of the accused and he had prepared injury report. The Doctor further opined that there was nothing on record to suggest that the appellant was not capable to perform sexual intercourse. 8. Dr. G.P. Meena (P.W.9) had sealed three sample swabs taken by Dr. Meena from the private parts of the prosecutrix. 9. Dr. Meena Gupta (P.W.15) on 13.8.2007 had examined the prosecutrix/victim, aged 10 years, and noted her clinical observations in the report (Ex.P.13). The report (Ex.P.13) prepared by Dr. Meena Gupta (P.W.15) reads as under:- "Examination:- External 1. Upper lip was swollen with tiny abrasion of 3x3 mm size. 2. Back and hips was studeled and sound particals and blood lower limbs was also soiled with blood. 3. Victim was wearing school uniform (white shirt, blue skirt) which were soiled in stool and blood. 4. Panty was absent. Internal Examination:- 1. Bleeding oozing out of vulva (heavy). 2. Hymen is torn (posteriarly). 3. A second degree penireal tear is extending half way to anus and on upper side in vagina which could not be seen because of pain during exploration for which victim was referred to center (Zanana Hospital, Alwar). Specimen Taken:- 1. Blood, 2. Saliva, 3. Two slides for post vagina and bleed profoundly. Specimen taken and sealed by me and handed over to Dr. G.P. Meena (MLO) on same day for FSL. Final conclusion will be given after FSL report.". 10. Dr. Meena Gupta (P.W.15) further opined that the prosecutrix/victim was raped. 11. State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajathan in its report (Ex.P.14) gave an opinion that human semen was detected on Chaddi and Ghaghari worn by the prosecutrix. 12. G.P. Meena (MLO) on same day for FSL. Final conclusion will be given after FSL report.". 10. Dr. Meena Gupta (P.W.15) further opined that the prosecutrix/victim was raped. 11. State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajathan in its report (Ex.P.14) gave an opinion that human semen was detected on Chaddi and Ghaghari worn by the prosecutrix. 12. Prosecution in all had examined eighteen witnesses and proved on record documents, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.25A. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All incriminating evidence was put to him. He denied the same and pleaded innocence. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 9.11.2007 and the appellant therein had given his age as 24 years. 13. We need not reproduce deposition of various other witnesses which include relations of the victim as Shri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, has very fairly contended that since the accused has been apprehended at the spot, he will not be in a position to assail the conviction of the appellant. 14. We have also gone through the record, the impugned judgment and the paper-book. We find testimony of complainant Rajesh Kumar Saini (P.W.1) and Raju (P.W.6) who had apprehended the accused at the spot and deposition of the prosecutrix (P.W.2) credible. Having perused the testimony of above witnesses, we are of the view that defence has miserably failed to cause dent in the prosecution case so far broad features of the case are concerned. Minor discrepancies, contradictions and improvements are not sufficient to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. Consequently, we affirm the conviction of the appellant. 15. At this stage Shri Gupta has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this court in which one of us (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.) was a Member in Chanda Lal @ Harchanda v. State of Rajasthan [D.B. Criminal Appeal No.947/2005, decided on 26.11.2014]. In the case of Chanda Lal @ Harchanda (supra), we had noted the contention of the learned counsel in that case and had observed as under:- "Shri N.A. Naqvi, Senior Counsel has also very fairly stated that taking the entire perspective of the case, he will only urge and pray before this Court that there were no aggravating circumstances available with the trial Court to award maximum sentence i.e. life imprisonment. The learned counsel has stated that to award the maximum sentence, there must be compelling reasons for the trial Court and such reasons are to be stated in the order whereby sentence is awarded. The learned Counsel has stated that recently Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sunil Dutt Sharma v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported as (2014) 4 SCC 375 while dealing with case of Section 304-B IPC had observed that Court should take notice of aggravating and mitigating circumstances while awarding sentence. The learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance upon Bavo @ Manubhai Ambalal Thakore v. State of Gujarat AIR 2012 Supreme Court 979 to contend that Hon'ble Apex Court considering the agony of protracted trial has awarded minimum sentence of ten years. The learned counsel states that in the present case, incident had taken place 11 years ago i.e. in the year 2003 and since then, appellant is in the corridors of the Court. It is contended before us that since, appellant was not released on bail during the trial and his sentence was also not suspended during appeal, thus he continue to languish behind the bars since 04th September, 2003, when his formal arrest was effected. The learned Public Prosecutor except age of the prosecutrix could not divulge any other reason to persuade us to maintain the sentence awarded by the trial Court. Hence, taking ratio of law laid in Sunil Dutt Sharma (supra) which in turn had relied upon Sangeet and Another v. State of Haryana (2013) Volume 2 SCC 452 and taking aggravated circumstances i.e. age of the prosecutrix and the mitigating circumstance that the appellant is sole bread earner of the family, he is in the corridors of the Court from last 11 years, we follow the mandate of law laid in case of Bavo @ Manubhai Ambalal Thakore (supra) and while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, reduce the sentence of life imprisonment awarded upon the appellant by the trial Court to ten years rigorous imprisonment. However, we enhance the fine awarded by the trial Court from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- while maintaining the default clause prescribed by the trial Court." 16. However, we enhance the fine awarded by the trial Court from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- while maintaining the default clause prescribed by the trial Court." 16. Having gone through the judgment rendered by us in Chanda Lal @ Harchanda (supra) which has been followed by us in various judgments, we find no ground to deviate from the view taken earlier as except of the age of victim/prosecutrix, no other aggravating circumstance is available on the record of the case. 17. Consequently, considering that the appellant is in custody since 13.8.2007, has undergone about eight years of actual sentence, on the date of incident, was less than 24 years of age was not previous convict and is also a sole bread earner of the family, we are of the view that ends of justice will be fully met if the sentence awarded upon the appellant is reduced from life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment. 18. Hence, while maintaining conviction of the appellant, we reduce the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court to ten years rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the sentence of fine awarded by the trial court alongwith the default clause. With the above reduction in sentence, the present appeal stands disposed of. Appeal disposed of.