ORDER : Deepak Maheshwari, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant as also learned public prosecutor. 2. This appeal has been preferred by accused Sawai Singh @ Sawai @ Khetu assailing the judgment dated 21 October, 2016 whereby learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu has convicted him for the offences punishable under Section 323 and 376 read with 511 IPC. Learned trial court has awarded one month rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 323 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years and six months along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 376/511 IPC in default the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has stated that there is material contradiction on various points in FIR Exhibit P-1 and the statements given by prosecution witnesses. So called eye witness who was driving camel cart nearby the scene of occurrence has not been examined. It is not proved whether prosecutrix returned from the school when she was allegedly ravished or had gone to graze the goats. She further submits that the accused has been falsely implicated because of enmity on account of dispute between the parties about the boundaries of agricultural fields. All these contradictions and lacunas in prosecution story have been ignored by learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. She thus submits judgment impugned may accordingly be quashed and set aside while allowing the appeal. 4. In alternative, prayer of learned counsel for accused is that accused Sawai Singh has already undergone major part of the sentence awarded to him by the trial court and if the conviction is not set aside, it may kindly be ordered to reduce the sentence of the accused to the period already undergone. 5. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has stated that the facts narrated in FIR Exhibit P-1 have been materially supported by all the prosecution witnesses. Minor contradictions which do not go to the root of the case cannot be taken into consideration. Fact of enmity between the parties has not been proved by the accused. There is consistency in the statements given by the prosecution witnesses so far as the commission of attempt to rape is concerned. Prosecutrix is a minor girl, of the age of around 12 years. Fact of enmity between the parties has not been proved by the accused. There is consistency in the statements given by the prosecution witnesses so far as the commission of attempt to rape is concerned. Prosecutrix is a minor girl, of the age of around 12 years. Minor contradictions are natural to occur in her statements but they do not came in the way to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. She thus submits that the impugned judgment may kindly be upheld while rejecting the appeal. 6. In light of the arguments advanced, I have scanned the oral as well as the documentary evidence available on record and the judgment impugned in view thereof. 7. As per report Exhibit P-1, when prosecutrix Punam aged 13 years, had gone to the field after her school was closed, accused Sawai Singh forcibly caught hold of her, slapt on her cheek also took a bite on it. He removed Salvaar of prosecutrix and try to ravish her. When she cried accused ran away. This report was lodged on the next day of alleged incident by parents of prosecutrix. Charge-sheet was filed against the accused for offences under Section 323 and 326/511 IPC after investigation PW-1 Rameshwar Lal father, PW-2 Pappu brother, PW-3 Smt. Kamla Devi, mother of prosecutrix and PW-4 Punam prosecutrix herself were examined during trial, PW-5 Dr. N.K. Agrawal, who examined prosecutrix for her age, PW-6 Smt. Sumitra - teacher of the school where the prosecutrix studied was also examined regarding age of prosecutrix. And lastly PW-7 Suresh Chand, Investigating Officer was also examined. After concluding the trial, learned trial court held the accused guilty and awarded sentence as mentioned above. 8. On close scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, it comes out that PW-4 Punam has materially corroborated the facts mentioned in FIR Exhibit P-1. She has stated that after coming from her school she went to graze the goats in agricultural field. Sawai Singh was cutting the branches of Khejri tree nearby. He came to her asking for water. Then he caught hold of her and removed her under garments (Jampher and Chaddi). He also removed his pant and fell down on her. He also took a bite on her cheek. Prosecutrix tried to release herself and started weeping. A person going on the camel cart saw her. Accused Sawai Singh ran away after seeing that person. Then he caught hold of her and removed her under garments (Jampher and Chaddi). He also removed his pant and fell down on her. He also took a bite on her cheek. Prosecutrix tried to release herself and started weeping. A person going on the camel cart saw her. Accused Sawai Singh ran away after seeing that person. Thereafter she reported the incident to her parents who took her to the police station to get the report lodged. Even during cross-examination, no statement has been made by prosecutrix which can impeach the veracity of her statement. She has stated that as her father had gone to sell cereals (moong), she went to graze the goats after coming from school. She has stated that accused threw sand on her head and eyes. She has admitted that there was no sign of injuries on her body and her clothes were also not torn. But in my view, these facts cannot be considered to make the alleged incident unreliable. She denied the suggestion that there is a dispute between her family and accused Sawai Singh about the boundaries of their fields. 9. On the basis of narration given by prosecutrix to her father PW-1 Rameshwar Lal and mother PW-3 Kamla Devi, they have given their statements. PW-1 has admitted that he got the report written from his relative Kesar Ji. In view of it, it can be comprehended that some minor contradiction in the facts mentioned in the report might have occurred. But there is no material contradiction touching the root of the case. 10. PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 also stated about the steps taken during investigation and preparing site inspection plan Exhibit P-3, MLR Exhibit P-4 and examination report about the age Exhibit P-5. PW-5 Dr. N.K. Agarwal has also deposed about examination of prosecutrix and preparing MLR Exhibit P-4. No visible injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix. As per X-ray conducted of her bone joints namely wrist and hip, her age was estimated to be between 11 to 14 years. Besides this, PW-6 Smt. Sumitra has also been examined who has stated that Punam had studied in her school up to class 9th. As per school record her date of birth is 14 October, 2001. This date of birth was mentioned by her guardian in the admission form at the time of her admission in class first. Besides this, PW-6 Smt. Sumitra has also been examined who has stated that Punam had studied in her school up to class 9th. As per school record her date of birth is 14 October, 2001. This date of birth was mentioned by her guardian in the admission form at the time of her admission in class first. As per the Scholor Register of the school and other record, her date of birth appears to be 14 October, 2001. As per this date prosecutrix appears to be of around 10 years on the date of occurrence i.e. 15.12.2011. This age is well within age estimated by PW-5 after conducting examination of prosecutrix regarding her age. 11. Investigating Officer of the case PW-7 Suresh Chand also narrated the whole proceedings which was conducted by him during investigation. He has also stated in his cross-examination that there was no visible injury on the body of prosecutrix. Same fact was narrated by prosecutrix herself. PW-7 Suresh Chand has stated that there was no sign of any camel cart nearby the place of occurrence. As that person was unknown no investigation could be conducted from him. In my view, there is lacuna in the prosecution story in this aspect only. But simply because of non examination of that person, the whole prosecution story, established by other reliable evidence, cannot be thrown away. 12. Learned trial court has considered the above stated prosecution evidence very minutely and has drawn the conclusion that there is no embellishment or contradiction which create impression that the prosecution story is unreliable or concocted. After scrutiny of the evidence available on record this Court is also of the view that there is no such contradiction between the statements given by various prosecution witnesses on which reliability of prosecution story can be impeached. The inference drawn by learned trial court appear to be in complete consonance with the evidence. 13. In view of above, the conviction held by learned trial court against the accused for offences under Section 323 and 376 read with 511 IPC is upheld. 14. So far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, the warrant of commitment to jail of the accused prepared by learned trial court shows that the accused is in custody since 25 March, 2014. This appeal has been preferred by the accused from Central Jail, Bikaner. 14. So far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, the warrant of commitment to jail of the accused prepared by learned trial court shows that the accused is in custody since 25 March, 2014. This appeal has been preferred by the accused from Central Jail, Bikaner. It is thus clear that he is continuing in custody for a period of almost three years and four months. Substantial part of the substantive sentence has almost been served by the accused-appellant. In circumstances of the case, it appears reasonable that the sentence awarded to him may be reduced to the period of custody already undergone by him. So far as amount of fine is concerned, it will remain the same as imposed by learned trial court. But the sentence for default in payment of fine, which has been awarded as six months rigorous imprisonment appears to be excessive and deserves to be reduced. Thus sentence for default is reduced from six months to two months rigorous imprisonment. Rest of the judgment passed by learned trial court is upheld except as mentioned above. 15. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.