JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant Ashok has challenged the judgment dated 8.9.2006 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Laxmangarh, District Alwar whereby the trial Judge held the appellant who was aged 19 years on the date of occurrence as guilty of offence under Section 376 IPC and has sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default thereof to undergo three months additional simple imprisonment. 2. Case of the prosecution is that the appellant on 1.6.2006 at about 7.00 PM had committed rape with a girl child aged six years, hereinafter called victim. Amar Singh (P.W.3) father of the victim in written report (Ex.P.1) presented before the SHO, Police Station Laxmangarh, District Alwar stated that on 1.6.2006 at about 7.00 PM in the evening they were working at their well. In the house, his father who is a handicapped, was only present. In absence of the parents, Ashok S/o. Shivlal, caste Yadav, r/o. Jagaru came and requested the father of Amar Singh (P.W.3) for water. Father gave him water to drink. Thereafter he took the victim along. On asking of father, he replied that he is taking the child along as he will purchase sweets for her. The victim had not returned for a long. Then father informed the ladies of the house. They started searching for the child. After two hours they found that near a dry well, victim was lying, after rape had been committed upon her. 3. On the basis of the written report (Ex.P.1) formal FIR (Ex.P.2) bearing FIR No.139/06 was registered at Police Station Laxmangarh. 4. Girraj grandfather of victim appeared as P.W.1 and stated that eleven months before his deposition in the court in the evening at about 8.00 PM accused came. He knew the accused earlier. The accused had requested for water which was provided. Thereafter he took the victim along and performed bad act with her. The witness further stated that Amar Singh had found that the appellant was lying over the victim. Victim was found at 10.00 PM. Accused had committed offence of rape with her. In cross-examination the witness stated that village of the appellant is at a distance of half Kos. 5. The victim herself appeared at P.W.2. The witness further stated that Amar Singh had found that the appellant was lying over the victim. Victim was found at 10.00 PM. Accused had committed offence of rape with her. In cross-examination the witness stated that village of the appellant is at a distance of half Kos. 5. The victim herself appeared at P.W.2. She stated in court that on the day of occurrence accused came and stated that he will give her sweets and saying so, he took her along near Hanumanji Ka Mandir. There he removed her underwear and performed bad act due to which blood started oozing with her private parts. Her underwear and frock were stained with blood. She further stated that accused had gaged her mouth and nobody had come to save her. Later her father and uncle came. When uncle and father came, accused ran away. She narrated the incident to her mother. She was taken to the hospital. 6. Dr. Phool Singh Choudhary (P.W.12) on 2.6.2006 was posted as Medical Jurist at General Hospital, Alwar. He examined the victim and vide injury report (Ex.P.5) found following two injuries on her person:- "1. Bruise on right cheek of size 5 x 3 cm with teeth bite mark at surrounding area of red colour. 2. Abrasion on right leg. Postereo upper ⅓rd of 1/4 x 1/4 cm with red colour. Both the injuries are simple and blunt and injury No.1 is tooth bite." 7. After medico legally examining the victim, she was referred to lady Doctor, Dr. Kalpana Mathur (P.W.13). She clinically examined the victim and her observations in Exhibit-P.6 are noted as under:- "Breast - Not developed. Mark of injury - Echymosis on right cheek. External genitalia - Swelling over left majora and parineal region, tenderness. O/E - Lacerated wound present on post vaginal wall and extending posteriorly about 2.0 cm on perineal region, anteriorly extension could not made out. Hymen freshly torn. P/V - P/V could not done because of mark tenderness. (1) V/v swab stick taken, (2) V/v smear taken and sealed and handed over to police constable (SI) Geegara for FSL report for examination of human spermatozoa, seminal fluid. Patient admit in SLR for further treatment. Opinion - Final opinion could be given after FSL report." 8. Dr. Battu Singh (P.W.15) on 2.6.2006 examined the present appellant. (1) V/v swab stick taken, (2) V/v smear taken and sealed and handed over to police constable (SI) Geegara for FSL report for examination of human spermatozoa, seminal fluid. Patient admit in SLR for further treatment. Opinion - Final opinion could be given after FSL report." 8. Dr. Battu Singh (P.W.15) on 2.6.2006 examined the present appellant. He gave his opinion that accused was capable of performing sexual intercourse and had further noticed the following injuries on person of accused, as per Exhibit-P.14:- "1. Lacerated wound 1 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm right parietal region. 2. Lacerated wound 1 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm right fronto parietal region. 3. Bruise 8 x 5 cm right side back. 4. Bruise 7 x 4 cm left side back. 5. Both eyes are black. All injuries are simple, blunt, duration within 24 hours." 9. We need not notice evidence of remaining witnesses as Shri D.K. Bharadwaj appearing for the appellant has confined his submissions to urge before this court that the trial court has gravely erred in awarding life imprisonment to the appellant. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly submitted that he is conscious that child/ victim herself has deposed against the appellant and the evidence of other relations inspire confidence and he is not in a position to dislodge their evidence. To fortify his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this court in which one of use (K.S. 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), by noticing contention of the counsel of that case, we have 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. 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." 11. In the present case, the learned Public Prosecutor except to say that victim was aged six years could not advance any other argument to justify life imprisonment awarded upon the appellant. 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." 11. In the present case, the learned Public Prosecutor except to say that victim was aged six years could not advance any other argument to justify life imprisonment awarded upon the appellant. In the present case also, the appellant is behind the bars since 2.6.2006 and furthermore, at the time of occurrence he was a young man aged 19 years. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has further contended before us that the appellant is a sole bread earner of the family and he had committed no offence before and after registration of this case. 13. Relying upon the case of Chanda Lal @ Harchanda (supra) wherein we had followed the case of Bavo @ Manubhai Ambalal Thakore (supra) to reduce the sentence of life imprisonment in the present case also while maintaining conviction of the appellant, we reduce the sentence of life imprisonment awarded upon the appellant to ten years rigorous imprisonment. 14. With the above modification and reduction in sentence from life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment, the present appeal is disposed of while maintaining the sentence of fine and the default clause.Appeal disposed of. *******