JUDGMENT Anil Kumar Srivastava-II, J. 1. This is revision against the judgment and order dated 26.7.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2001, whereby the learned appellate court has confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate/IVth Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Raebareli in case No. 896/2000, Crime No. 87/92, under section 354 IPC, whereby the accused was sentenced for one year’s simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. According to the prosecution version, an FIR was lodged by one Binda Deen and Smt. Parvati on 22.3.1992 stating that on 07.3.1992 at about 04: 00 PM when their daughters ‘A’ and ‘B’ had gone to collect the wood from the distant end of the village, accused Pappu called them and took them to his tubewell near the Arhar field. He disrobed both of them with an intention to commit rape but after seeing two unknown passerby, when the victims cried, accused ran away. Father of the girls were not present at the house. When the mother of the girls-complainant complained Pappu then he threatened to kill. 3. On the basis of the written report first information report was registered at the police station under section 354, 506 IPC. Investigation was handed over to SI Radhey Singh who recorded the statement of witnesses. After investigation chargesheet was submitted. 4. Accused was charged under section 354, 506 IPC, who denied the charges and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, prosecution has produced PW-1 victim, PW-2 Parvati, mother of one victim, PW-3 another victim, PW-4 Constable Chandrapal Singh, formal witness, who has also proved the charge-sheet and site plan. 5. After appreciating the evidence on record, learned Magistrate has recorded a finding that the statement of victim PW-1 and PW-3 is fully reliable. There was no material contradiction in the statement of witnesses. They were student of Class IV at the time of incident. Some minor natural contradiction were found in the statement. It is further held that the prosecution has successfully proved the charges against the accused. Accordingly, accused was convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred an appeal. Learned appellate court has held that the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused. There is no material contradiction in the statement of both the victims. Accordingly, accused was convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred an appeal. Learned appellate court has held that the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused. There is no material contradiction in the statement of both the victims. Place of occurrence is also proved. It is also held that the intention of the accused was to commit rape. Delay is duly explained. Defence version is not believable. There is no enmity of the accused either with the complainant or the victims. Accordingly, appeal was also dismissed. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the accused appellant has preferred this revision. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 9. Victims PW-1 and PW-3 have been produced by the prosecution. Admittedly, both the victims were studying in Class IV. The incident relates to the year 1992 while their evidence in court were recorded in the year 1999. At the time of recording of statement of the victims their age was 14 years, meaning thereby at the time of incident they were seven years of age. Evidence of the witnesses have to be considered keeping in view their tender age. 10. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that there is a delay of 15 days in lodging the FIR which could not be explained by the prosecution, hence, the prosecution story becomes doubtful. PW-2 Parvati is one of the complainant and is mother of one of the victim. Written report bears the date of report as 08.3.1992 but the FIR was registered on 22.3.1992. PW-2 Parvati has stated that she has gone to the police station on the next day and submitted the written report exhibit ka-1. Admittedly, she is not an eyewitness of the incident. She has explained that her husband and the husband of the Binda Deen were not at home. After registering the case, Investigating Officer reached the spot and also inspected the place of occurrence. 11. This witness has given a natural statement. This case appears to be a case of defective investigation. Admittedly, she is not an eyewitness of the incident. She has explained that her husband and the husband of the Binda Deen were not at home. After registering the case, Investigating Officer reached the spot and also inspected the place of occurrence. 11. This witness has given a natural statement. This case appears to be a case of defective investigation. When the written report was submitted on 08.3.1992 which is stated by the PW-2 Parvati that on the next date of the incident she went to the police station and lodged the first information report, thereafter, the investigating officer came and inspected the spot then why the FIR was registered on 22.3.1992. There is no justification or explanation for the same adduced by the prosecution. Prosecution should have given an explanation on the point but the defective investigation itself could not be a ground to disbelieve the whole prosecution version. 12. In Dayal Singh and others v. State of Uttranchal 2012 (3) J.I.C. 428 Hon’ble Supreme Court propounded the law on defective or faulty investigation. It was held that - “The investigating Officer, as well as the doctor who are dealing with the investigation of a criminal case, are obliged to act in accordance with the police manual and the known reasons of medical practice, respectively. They are both obliged to be diligent, truthful and fair in their approach and investigation. A default or breach of duty, intentionally or otherwise, can some times prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. An Investigating Officer is completely responsible and answerable for the manner and methodology adopted in completing his investigation. Where the default and omission is so flagrant that it speaks volumes of deliberate act or such irresponsible attitude of investigation, no court can afford to overlook it.” “Declaration in duty or carelessness is an abuse of discretion under a definite law and misconduct is a violation of indefinite law. Misconduct is a forbidden act whereas dereliction of duty is the forbidden quality of an act and is necessarily indefinite. One is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, with least element of discretion, while the other is primarily as abuse of discretion. This Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ram Singh Ex. One is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, with least element of discretion, while the other is primarily as abuse of discretion. This Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ram Singh Ex. Constable [ (1992) 4 SCC 54 : ( AIR 1992 SC 2188 : 1992 AIR SCW 2595)] stated that the ambit of these expressions had to be construed with reference to the subject-matter and the context where the terms occurs, regard being given to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve. The police service is a disciplined service and it requires maintenance of strict discipline. The consequences of these defaults should normally be attributable to negligence. Police officers and doctors, by their profession, are required to maintain duty decorum of high standards. The standards of investigation and the prestige of the profession are dependent upon the action of such specialized persons. The police manual and even the provisions of the Cr.P.C. Require the investigation to be conducted in a particular manner and method which, in our opinion, stands clearly violated in the present case.................. Also, in the same case, the court, while referring to the decision in Ram Bihari Yadav and others v. State of Bihar & Ors. [ (1995) 6 SCC 31 : ( AIR 1996 SC 122 : 1995 AIR SCW 3810)] noticed that if primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigation, to the omission of lapses by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the law enforcement agency but also in the administration of justice.” “In the case of Sathi Prasad v. The State of U.P. [ (1972) 3 SCC 613 : ( AIR 1973 SC 448 )], this court stated that it is well settled that if the police records become suspect and investigation perfunctory, it becomes the duty of the court to see if the evidence given in the court should be relied upon and such lapses ignored. Noticing the possibility of investigation being designedly defective, this Court in the case of Dhanaj Singh alias Shera & Ors. v. State of Punjab [ (2004) 3 SCC 654 : ( AIR 2004 SC 1920 : 2004 AIR SCW 1609)], held, “in the case of a defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. Noticing the possibility of investigation being designedly defective, this Court in the case of Dhanaj Singh alias Shera & Ors. v. State of Punjab [ (2004) 3 SCC 654 : ( AIR 2004 SC 1920 : 2004 AIR SCW 1609)], held, “in the case of a defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective.” “The court in the case of Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar [ AIR 1999 SC 644 : (1999 AIR SCW 296)], enunciated the principle, in conformity with the previous judgments, that if the lapse or omission is committed by the investigating agency, negligently or otherwise, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. The contaminated conduct of officials should to stand in the way of evaluating the evidence by the courts, otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party”.......... “ Conducts which illegitimately affect the presentation of evidence in proceedings before the Courts have to be seriously and sternly dealt with. There should not be any undue anxiety to only protect the interest of the accused. That would be unfair, as noted above, to the needs of the society. On the contrary, efforts should be ensure needs of the society. On the contrary, efforts should be ensure fair trial where the accused and the prosecution both get a fair deal. Public interest in proper administration of justice must be given as much important if not more, as the interest of the individual accused. The courts have a vital role to play.” 13. This is a peculiar type of case where two minor girls of about seven years of age were disrobed by the accused but the accused could not succeed in his ill intentions as two unknown persons were passing through field. Statement of PW-1 and PW-3 are to be scrutinized very carefully. Learned Magistrate as well as the appellate court has very meticulously dealt with the evidence of the two witnesses. Statement of PW-1 and PW-3 are to be scrutinized very carefully. Learned Magistrate as well as the appellate court has very meticulously dealt with the evidence of the two witnesses. PW-1 injured has stated that she along with the other victim had gone to collect the wood near canal when the accused came on a bullock cart. He called both of them and asked them to sit on the bullock cart. He took them to the field and disrobed them. Two persons were passing through the canal when victims made an alarm. Accused ran away. Accused was known to them as he also resides in the same village. Both the victims are friends residing in the adjoining houses. PW-1 victim was collecting the wood when the accused came. This witness has given a very natural statement that accused asked them to sit on the bullock cart. They sat on it. Thereafter, he took them to his field. On the one side of the field there was Arhar while on the other side was wheat filed. He disrobed the victims. When the victims heard the voice of passing someone, they raised an alarm. Accused ran away. Thereafter, mother of the PW-1 victim went to the house of the accused for making a complaint. There she was threatened. Next day they went to the police station to lodge the report. PW-3 victim B has also stated the same story. There are certain minor contradictions regarding the crop but that contradiction is very natural. PW-3 has also stated that next day she went to the police station with her mother. When her mother went to the house of Pappu accused for making the complaint she was threatened. Statement of PW-3 is also fully reliable. 14. It is a case where two minor girls were made the victim of the lust of accused. Both the girls are of very tender age of seven years. There is not a single iota of evidence on record to show that they have falsely implicated the accused. A suggestion is given that accused is working in the Electricity Department. He used to disconnect the illegal connections due to it he has been falsely implicated. Suggestion itself is not believable. No incidence has been referred wherein any such disconnection was made by the accused. 15. A suggestion is given that accused is working in the Electricity Department. He used to disconnect the illegal connections due to it he has been falsely implicated. Suggestion itself is not believable. No incidence has been referred wherein any such disconnection was made by the accused. 15. It has been held in State of H.P. v. Sanjay Kumar, (2017)2 SCC 51 that “By now it is well settled that the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict the accused. No doubt, her testimony has to inspire confidence. Seeking corroboration to a statement before relying upon the same as a rule, in such cases, would literally amount to adding insult to injury. The deposition of the prosecutrix has, thus, to be taken as a whole. Needless to reiterate that the victim of rape is not an accomplice and her evidence can be acted upon without corroboration. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness does. If the court finds it difficult to accept her version, it may seek corroboration from some evidence which lends assurance to her version. To insist on corroboration, except in the rarest of rare cases, is to equate one who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her claim of rape will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars, as in the case of an accomplice to a crime. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief of suspicion ? The plea about lack of corroboration has no substance (see Bhupinder Sharma v. State of HP (2003) 8 SCC 551 ) 16. Statement of PW-1 and PW-3 victim A and B is wholly reliable. There are minor contradictions which are bound to occur when the witnesses are of seven years of age only. Having gone through the evidence on record, I do not find any material illegality or irregularity having committed by the courts below. Statement of PW-1 and PW-3 victim A and B is wholly reliable. There are minor contradictions which are bound to occur when the witnesses are of seven years of age only. Having gone through the evidence on record, I do not find any material illegality or irregularity having committed by the courts below. Accordingly, the revision is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that incident relates to the year 1992. Accused has already undergone some period in jail. He may be released on the period already undergone. I am not inclined to accept this submission. It is a case wherein the accused has tried to outrage the modesty of two young girls of seven years of age. 17. In Rajbala v. State of Haryana (2016) 1 SCC 463 Hon’ble the Apex Court has issued certain guidelines for the courts while sentencing an accused. It was held that “16. A court while imposing sentence, has a duty to respond to the collective cry of the society. The legislature in its wisdom has conferred discretion on the court but the duty of the court in such a situation becomes more difficult and complex. It has to exercise the discretion on reasonable and rational parameters. The discretion cannot be allowed to yield to fancy or notion. A Judge has to keep in mind the paramount concept of rule of law and the conscience of the collective and balance it with the principle of proportionality but when the discretion is exercised in a capricious manner, it tantamounts to relinquishment of duty and reckless abandonment of responsibility. One cannot remain a total alien to the demand of the socio-cultural milieu regard being had to the command of law and also brush aside the agony of the victim or the survivors of the victim. Society waits with patience to see that justice is done. There is a hope on the part of the society and when the criminal culpability is established and the discretion is irrationally exercised by the court, the said hope is shattered and the patience is wrecked. It is the duty of the court not to exercise the discretion in such a manner as a consequence of which the expectation inherent in patience, which is the “finest part of fortitude” is destroyed. It is the duty of the court not to exercise the discretion in such a manner as a consequence of which the expectation inherent in patience, which is the “finest part of fortitude” is destroyed. A Judge should never feel that the individuals who constitute the society as a whole imperceptible to the exercise of discretion. He should always bear in mind that erroneous and fallacious exercise of discretion is perceived by a visible collective.” 18. Further in Abdul Waheed v. State of U.P. (2016) 1 SCC 583 it was held by the Apex Court that : - “Undue sympathy would do more harm to the criminal justice system undermining the public confidence in the efficacy of the system. It is therefore the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the manner in which the offence was committed.” 19. In Mofil Khan and another v. State of Jharkhand (2015) 1 SCC 67 , three judges bench of Hon’ble Apex court has held that : - “60. In the context of these turbulent social times, we cannot remain oblivious to the substantial suffering of the victims. It stands as a fact that criminal justice reform and civil rights movement in India has historically only paid considerably attention to the rights of the accused and neglected to address to the same extent the impact of crime on the victims. It is not only the victims of crime only that require soothing balm, but also the incidental victims like the family, the co-sufferers and to a relatively large extent the society too. The judiciary has a paramount duty to safeguard the rights of the victims as diligently as those of the perpetrators. 61. In Mahesh v. State of M.P. (1987) 3 SCC 80 , this Court has deprecated the lenient approach in imposition of the appropriate punishment and observed that it would be a mockery of justice to permit the accused to escape the extreme penalty of law when faced with clear evidence and diabolic acts. This Court held that to award the lesser punishment would be to render the justice system of this country suspect due to which the common man would lose faith in courts. This Court approved the harshest punishment in such cases as here adopting the approach that the accused understands and the society appreciates the language of deterrence more than the reformative jargon. 62. This Court approved the harshest punishment in such cases as here adopting the approach that the accused understands and the society appreciates the language of deterrence more than the reformative jargon. 62. In Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N. (1991) 3 SCC 471 , this Court stated that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system and undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law, Society could not long endure under such serious threats and therefore, it is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, etc.” 20. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. Judgment and order passed by the learned court below are confirmed. Accused- revisionist should surrender before the learned Magistrate within a period of two weeks from today, failing which learned Magistrate should issue the coercive processes to ensure his arrest. 21. Office is directed to certify the judgment to the learned lower court forthwith. Office is further directed to send the lower court record to the learned trial court forthwith. Learned trial court should send the compliance report within eight weeks.