JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - Daughter aged 5 years of the complainant (hereinafter to be called as prosecutrix, to protect identity of the victim) was raped by the appellant. 2. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Alwar, vide impugned judgment dated 17.1.2006 held the appellant guilty of offence under Sections 366 and 376(2)(f) of IPC. Vide a separate order of even date, the trial court had sentenced the appellant as under:- U/s. 366 IPC- seven years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo six months' R.I. U/s. 376(2)(f)- Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- 3. Criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of written report lodged by Ramnath (PW-1), father of the prosecutrix. Complainant appearing as witness has stated that he is posted as a teacher in Bajrang Vidhyalaya. His daughter, aged five years, was also a student of the same school. Three months ago, he along with his daughter had returned from school. He after changing his clothes was taking his meals and his daughter had gone out to ease herself. Before going to ease herself, his daughter was playing alongwith other children outside the house. When she was called to take meals, she stated that she will first go to ease herself. The daughter of the complainant had not returned to the house for about one hour. Complainant thought that she may have fallen in the water. Then he went out to search for her. When he inquired from Sadhuram Bagada and Kanhailal Maharaj, they informed that accused appellant had carried away the daughter of the complainant. When they both asked the accused as to where he was taking the child, he said that he was taking her to his Baba (grandfather). From sherbs near the spot, he heard sobs of his daughter, and found that she was in a semiconscious state, her underwear stood removed, and blood was oozing out of her private parts. Meanwhile, the complainant's wife, also reached there. The child came into her senses after two to three hours; she stated that the accused had taken her on promise of giving salted snacks, and had committed a bad act. Guddi (P.W.2), the prosecutrix's mother, appeared as a witness and corroborated the statement of her husband. 4. Meanwhile, the complainant's wife, also reached there. The child came into her senses after two to three hours; she stated that the accused had taken her on promise of giving salted snacks, and had committed a bad act. Guddi (P.W.2), the prosecutrix's mother, appeared as a witness and corroborated the statement of her husband. 4. The prosecutrix appeared as P.W.3; she stated that the accused had put finger in her private part, and later had raped her by putting his penis in her vagina. 5. Sadhu Ram (P.W.6) and Ghanshyam (P.W.7) stated that they had seen the accused carrying away the daughter of the complainant. 6. Medical evidence has also proved the fact of rape. Dr. Raghuraj Singh (P.W.12) proved medico-legal report (Exhibit- P/18). This witness found the injuries on the genitals of the prosecution as under:- "Tear reddish brown colour with swelling margin and bleed on touch with pain 1/2 cm in vaginal orifice of post commission with reddish discharge coming out from vagina. Abrasion with reddish brownish margin 1/4 x 1/4 cm on both side of inner vulva margin and on clitoris. All above injuries caused by blunt object and within four days of duration. No, or any stain are found on part examined." 7. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant, in view of the testimony of the prosecutrix corroborated by her parents, and the medical evidence, has submitted that he will not be in a position to assail the conviction. But he still pray that it is not a case where life imprisonment ought to have been awarded. Thus, Mr. Gupta, has prayed for reduction of sentence. To fortify above submission, he had relied upon the judgment rendered by us in Chanda Lal @ Harchanda v. State of Rajasthan D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 947/2005, decided on 26.11.2014 , wherein after noticing contention of counsel in that case, we have held as under:- "Mr. 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 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." 8. We find no reason to take a different view. 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." 8. We find no reason to take a different view. Therefore, relying upon our judgment in the case of Chanda Lal @ Harchanda (supra), in this case also, we reduce the sentence of life imprisonment awarded upon the appellant to ten years' R.I. However, we enhance the fine awarded upon the appellant u/s 376(2)(f) IPC to Rs. Ten Thousand, in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo one year's R.I. Sentence awarded on both counts shall run concurrently. 9. In view of above, the present appeal stands disposed of. *******