JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of 9th conviction and order of sentence dated June, 2006 and 13th June,2006 respectively, passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in connection with Sessions Trial no. 476 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. Case no. 1148 of 2004 arising out of Sidhgora P.S. Case no. 53 of 2004, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(f) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years and to pay fine of Rs. 25000/- under section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. and in default of making payment of fine, he shall suffer further imprisonment for four years. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has further directed that if the amount of fine is deposited by the convict, the entire amount would be paid to the victim as compensation. 2. The case of the prosecution, as it appears from the written report lodged by Dinesh Mukhi, in brief, is that on 18.07.2004, minor daughter of informant, namely, Shalu, aged about 8 years was taken by the appellant on his bicycle to a lonely place where Shalu was subjected to rape by the appellant. It is disclosed that Shalu was taken from the place where she was playing prior to the incident. During night, the victim felt pain in her vagina and the matter was reported to her mother and she also described the incident. On the basis of the written report lodged by Dinesh Mukhi, Sidhgora P.S. Case no. 53 of 2004 dated 19.07.2004 under sections 363 and 376 I.P.C. was registered. The police, after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet and accordingly cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of session and registered as S.T. no. 476 of 2004. 3. The appellant stood charged for the offence under section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to substantiate charge has examined altogether seven witnesses including informant, doctor and Investigating Officer. Learned Additional Sessions Judge at the conclusion of trial, held the appellant guilty for the offence under section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. and sentenced him as indicated above. 4. The prosecution in order to substantiate charge has examined altogether seven witnesses including informant, doctor and Investigating Officer. Learned Additional Sessions Judge at the conclusion of trial, held the appellant guilty for the offence under section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. and sentenced him as indicated above. 4. At the very outset, counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is not going to challenge the findings of the trial court, but he intends to make prayer for modification in the sentence. It is submitted that the appellant at the time of occurrence was aged hardly 20 years and he has remained in custody for about 11½ years. No doubt, he has committed heinous crime, but then he has suffered a lot by remaining in jail for such a considerable period. The appellant has spent his precious young age in the jail. Therefore, it is prayed that he may be given opportunity to start his career and chance may be given to amend himself. 5. Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the prayer and submitted that the victim was aged hardly 8 years at the time of occurrence and the trauma and mental agony which she had suffered shall not disappear during whole of her life. 6. We have gone through the case records and evidence available. No doubt, the appellant has committed heinous crime of rape, that too on a girl aged 8-9 years, but then the appellant was also just entering the age of 20 years at the time of occurrence and at that age of 20 years, he had committed offence. He has remained in custody for about 11½ years and the minimum punishment prescribed under section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. is ten years. 7. Considering all these aspects and also with a hope that the appellant would amend himself and he would become a social animal and would think about his future life, we feel inclined to modify the sentence and, accordingly, we direct that the appellant instead of serving punishment of 14 years rigorous imprisonment, the period already undergone till the date in custody shall serve the purpose. So far as amount of fine of Rs. So far as amount of fine of Rs. 25,000/- is concerned, we are not inclined to reduce the fine amount because it is to be paid to the victim, if deposited by the appellant, but we feel inclined to modify that part of the sentence in which it is directed that in default of making payment of fine, the appellant shall suffer further four years of rigorous imprisonment. Accordingly, in default of making payment of fine, instead of four years, the appellant shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 8. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal stands dismissed. The convicting and/or successor court shall communicate/issue modified conviction of warrant.