ORDER : This is an appeal by the State of Rajasthan against the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 29-7-2008 by which the High Court has reduced the sentence for life imposed on the respondent - accused to a term of ten years. The respondent was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Court for raping a five year old girl. The Trial Court found that the respondent had a quarrel with the aunt of the victim one day prior to the incident. The aunt, Smt. Santosh, had reprimanded the respondent and also assaulted him with the stick. Thereupon, the respondent warned her that this would have a bad result. The respondent them came to her house at night where she was sleeping with the aunt and carried away the little girl. He was seen carrying her away by PW 7 Mr. Pusaram. 2. After that the child was found the next morning in a nullah, weeping and inconsolable. The medical examination revealed that the child's body was not developed, there were no public hairs, the breast was not developed. However, the upper portion of the thigh was blood stained and the clitoris was reddened. The labia minor and majoria was swollen and the vulvae had a lacerated wound of 3 cm x 1.5 x 1.5 cm. There were abrasions on the body in the middle of neck of 1.5 x 2 cm. The abrasions were 24 hours old and the Doctor, Dr. Ravi Prabha opined that this was a case of sexual assault which could be confirmed only after the viscera report was obtained. The other Doctor, Dr. Anil Agarwal who examined the child stated that we reached the conclusion that her body, neck and vagina contains lacerated wound which occurred within 24 hours of the examination. 3. Finding the evidence led by the prosecution to be reliable and trust-worthy, the trial Court convicted the respondent for rape and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10000/- for the offence and additionally sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court imposed the sentences by observing that the respondent had committed the heinous misdeeds only to satisfy his sexual desire. 10000/- for the offence and additionally sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court imposed the sentences by observing that the respondent had committed the heinous misdeeds only to satisfy his sexual desire. The trial court observed that there are demands in society for even death punishment for such cases but eventually acted in accordance with law and sentenced the respondent to the highest sentence provided by law namely imprisonment for life. 4. In appeal before the High Court, the respondent counsel did not assail the finding of conviction. He only prayed for leniency and submitted that the life imprisonment would be too harsh. The High Court observed that the proviso to Section 376 (2) of the IPC lays down that the Court may for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the Judgment impose sentence of imprisonment for either description for a term of less than ten years and referred to some earlier judgments where the term lesser than life imprisonment was imposed on rapist of victim of tender age. After such reference, the High Court simply observed that the imposition of ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine is a severe punishment would meet the ends of justice. 5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently submitted that the High Court ought not to have reduced the sentence appropriately awarded by the trial court to a sentence of ten years. It was submitted that the sentence imposed is disproportionally less to the heinousness and gravity of the crime where a hapless innocent young girl of the tender age of five year was raped by the respondent partially out of lust and partially out of desire to take revenge upon the child's aunt. Learned counsel relied on a Judgment of this Court in Shyam Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 7 SCC 77 where this Court considered the appropriateness of a sentence for rape of an eight year old child. This Court referred to some earlier decisions where this Court considered the object of punishment and the philosophy of a just punishment which is the collective cry of the society. 6. This Court referred to some earlier decisions where this Court considered the object of punishment and the philosophy of a just punishment which is the collective cry of the society. 6. The Court cited with approval the Judgment in Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 7 SCC 545 where the Court observed "neither the personal perception of a judge nor self-adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions should be allowed to have any play. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of. Similarly an offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a Court. This Court noticed with approval the several judgments of this Court. The Court observed as follows:- "It is seemly to note that the legislature, while prescribing a minimum sentence for a term which shall not be less than ten years, has also provided that the sentence may be extended up to life. The legislature, in its wisdom, has left it to the discretion of the court. Almost for the last three decades, this Court has been expressing its agony and distress pertaining to the increased rate of crimes against women. The eight year old girl, who was supposed to spend time in cheerfulness, was dealt with animal passion and her dignity and purity of physical frame was shattered. The plight of the child and the shock suffered by her can be well visualized. The torment on the child has the potentiality to corrode the poise and equanimity of any civilised society. The age-old wise saying that "child is a gift of the providence" enters into the realm of absurdity. The young girl, with efflux of time, would grow with a traumatic experience, an unforgettable shame. She shall always be haunted by the memory replete with heavy crush of disaster constantly echoing the chill air of the past forcing her to a state of nightmarish melancholia. She may not be able to assert the honour of a woman for no fault of hers." 7. The Court further observed that such a crime creates an atmosphere of fear which is historically abhorred by the society. In the result, the Court upheld the sentence for life imposed by the High Court. 8. She may not be able to assert the honour of a woman for no fault of hers." 7. The Court further observed that such a crime creates an atmosphere of fear which is historically abhorred by the society. In the result, the Court upheld the sentence for life imposed by the High Court. 8. We are surprised to find that in the present case though the High Court observed that there are no extenuating and mitigating circumstances available, it did say only for the purpose of holding that a sentence less than the prescribed maximum sentence cannot be justified. At the relevant time, the relevant provision of Section 376 read as follows:- 376. Punishment for rape. (1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the women raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which cases, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both: Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. (2) Whoever, (a) being a police officer commits rape - i. within the limits of the police station to which he is appointed; or ii. in the premises of any station house whether or not situated in the police station to which he is appointed; or iii. (2) Whoever, (a) being a police officer commits rape - i. within the limits of the police station to which he is appointed; or ii. in the premises of any station house whether or not situated in the police station to which he is appointed; or iii. on a woman in his custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to him; or (b) being a public servant, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman in his custody as such public servant or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to him; or (c) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody, established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a women's or children's institution takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or (d) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or (e) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or (f) commits rape on a woman when she is under twelve years of age; or (g) commits gang rape shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than then years. 9. This Section clearly contemplates that the sentence for rape should not less than ten years or one for life but that a Court may impose a sentence lesser than the minimum prescribed, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the Judgment. The High Court thus considered the circumstances of the cases and observed that there are no special reasons for reducing the sentence for awarding a sentence less than the minimum prescribed. While doing so, the High Court completely failed to give any reasons whatsoever for reducing the sentence imposed for life imprisonment by the trial court to a sentence of ten years. 10. While doing so, the High Court completely failed to give any reasons whatsoever for reducing the sentence imposed for life imprisonment by the trial court to a sentence of ten years. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it was not necessary for the High Court to give any reasons for reducing the sentence only if the High Court intended to reduce the sentence to a term less than the prescribed minimum. It is not possible to accept this submission. Though the law requires a court imposing punishment to record adequate and special reasons to impose a sentence of imprisonment less than the minimum prescribed period of ten years, it does not mean that no reasons need be given by an appellate court if it intends to reduce the sentence awarded by the lower Court. Reason is said to be the soul of law and must inform all the acts of a court. Reasons are particularly germane where sentences are reduced or enhanced. We find that the judgment in appeal is completely silent. 11. Since one of the doctors said that the findings will be confirmed only after FSL Report is obtained, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the doctors have not observed that any rape was committed at all. Taking advantage of this, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the doctors have not found that any rape was committed on the victim. 12. We find that there is a categorical finding by the same doctor that there is a injury in the neck and the vagina and blood clot on the thigh as observed earlier. Moreover, this doctor only said that the findings will be confirmed after the FSL Report. This does not warrant an inference that the doctor meant to say no rape was committed. Moreover, the other doctor has clearly stated that the neck and vagina of the victim contains a lacerated wound which occurred within 24 hours. Considering the structure of the female vagina, there is no doubt that a lacerated wound in the vagina can only be caused by forceful penetration. We thus reject the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. The sentence imposed by the trial court is restored. The appeal is allowed accordingly in the afore-stated terms. We thus reject the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. The sentence imposed by the trial court is restored. The appeal is allowed accordingly in the afore-stated terms. 14. The accused shall surrender within a period of six weeks from today. If he fails to do so, he shall be arrested by the concerned police station and sent to prison for serving out the remainder period of sentence.