JUDGMENT : 1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by appellant- Amin Khan @ Aamin Khan under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. assailing the validity of judgment dated 05th of March, 2011 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No.2, Pali (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as "Trial Court") in Session Case No.1/2010, arising out of F.I.R. No.195/2009 of Police Station Rohat, District Pali whereby the learned trial court convicted the accused appellant for offence u/s 376 (1) and 306 of IPC and passed following sentence, which reads as under:- 376 (1) of IPC - Life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. 306 of IPC - Rigorous imprisonment for ten years, along with fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. 2. As per facts of the case, before registration of the FIR initially a written report (Ex.P/14) was lodged by accused appellant himself on 15.07.2009 at Police Station- Rohat, in which he (appellant) gave report to the effect that today in the morning at 08.30 AM my daughter went for taking water from the water tank situated in the house, but accidentally she fell down in the water tank and at 9'O Clock, my younger brother informed me on mobile that in the house where my wife and daughter were living, my daughter fell down in the water tank and died. The dead body of Ms. "A" (deceased) was taken out from the water tank in the presence of two witnesses, viz. Mohan Singh and Chatura Ram. It was informed by the accused appellant to the police that he has no doubt upon any person. 3. Upon the aforesaid information given by the appellant, the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem and proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated. As per postmortem report, the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning. After postmortem, the dead body of deceased was handed over to the appellant vide Ex.P/9. At the time of incident, the deceased was 16 years of age. 4. As per postmortem report, the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning. After postmortem, the dead body of deceased was handed over to the appellant vide Ex.P/9. At the time of incident, the deceased was 16 years of age. 4. However, later on 25.07.2009 a written report (Ex.P/3) was filed by the wife of appellant Smt. Jubeda against her husband (appellant) at Police Station-Rohat, Distt: Pali, upon which FIR No.195/2009 was registered on 27.07.2009 against the accused appellant for offence under Section 306 of IPC. At the time of incident, the deceased was 16 years of age. 4. However, later on 25.07.2009 a written report (Ex.P/3) was filed by the wife of appellant Smt. Jubeda against her husband (appellant) at Police Station-Rohat, Distt: Pali, upon which FIR No.195/2009 was registered on 27.07.2009 against the accused appellant for offence under Section 306 of IPC. In the written complaint, Smt. Jubeda (PW.3) made following allegations which reads as under: lsok es] Jheku Fkkukf/kdkjh Ikqfyl Fkkuk jksfgV] ftyk ikyh] jktLFkku fo"k; %& cykRdkj dj etcwj gksdj vkRegR;k ds lEcfU/kr eqdnek ntZ djus gsrqA ekU;oj th] uez fuosnu gS fd eS izkFkh Jh tqcsnk ifRu Jh vkfEku [kak eqlyeku eksfgyk] fuoklh xkao psU<k rglhy jksfgV ftyk ikyh esa jgus okyh dh rjQ ls fuosnu gS fnukad 14@7@2009 dks jkf= ds le; djhc 12-01 cts esjs ifr vkfeu [kka us eq>s /kDdk nsdj esjs yM+dh vQlkuk dk gkFk idM+ dj tcjnLrh dejs esa ys x;k mlds lkFk [kksVk dke fd;k eSusa dejs dk njoktk [kksyuss dh cgqr dksf'k'k dh ysfdu dejs ds vUnj fpVduh yxh gqbZ Fkh vk/kk ?k.Vs ckn vkfeu [kka us njoktk [kksyk yM+dh esjs ikl jksrh gqbZ vkbZ vkSj eq>s esjs yMdh vQlkuk us dgk ds esjs lkFk diM+s mrkj dj esjs lkFk [kksVk dke fd;k cM+h eqf'dy ls mldks le>k;k vkSj pqi j[kk vkSj nqljs fnu lqcg 15@7@2009 dks ikuh ds Vkads esa dwn dj vkRek gR;k dj yh fQj gekjs ?kj ij iqfyl vkbZ vkSj mldk iksLVekVZe djok;k ejus ls igys ,d i= es fy[kk Fkk tks i= mldh jkbfVax dk gS tks bl izdkj ikik esa vkils nq[kh gksdj nqfu;k NksM+ dj tk jgh gwa ikik vki us esjh ftUnxh cckZn dj nh cki ugh ,d dal gS vkils ls dSls dgw vki esjs cki gksA Fkkuk vf/kdkjh ls gkFk tksM+ dj fuosnu gS fd esjs ,sls ifr vkfeu [kak dks fxjrkj dj dkuwuh dk;Zokgh dj l[r ls l[r ltk fnykbZ tkuh pkfg, ,sls vkneh dks mez dSn dh ltk fnyokbZ vQlkuk us tks i= fy[kk Fkk bl fjiksVZ ds lkFk izfrfyfi layXu gSA ,sls vijk/kh dks rqjUr fxjrkj dj dM+h ls dM+h ltk fnykbZ tkosA tqcSnk ifRu Jh vkfeu [kka fuoklh esjs yMds llqjky teky [kka ds edku esa jkfgV] ftyk ikyh jktLFkku eksa- u-9785545736 fnukad 25-7-2009^^ 5. After registration of FIR, Aslam Khan, (elder brother of complainant, Smt. Jubeda) submitted a note-book of deceased "A", in which following facts were written by her. The said page of note-book is available on record as (Ex.P/21A), which reads as under: ^^ikik esa vkils nq[kh gksdj nqfu;k NksM+ dj tk jgh gwa ikik vki us esjh ftUnxh cckZn dj nh cki ugh ,d dal gS vkils ls dSls dgwa vki esjs cki gksA 6. The said document was taken in possession vide Ex.P/5 in the presence of two witnesses Anwar Khan and Ashique Khan. After registration of FIR, accused appellant was arrested by the police vide Ex.P/19 and the hand written note was sent to FSL to ascertain the handwriting of deceased Ms. "A" and it was reported by the FSL that said note was written by Ms. "A" herself in her own handwriting. The following opinion was given by FSL with respect to said hand written suicide note, which reads thus: "The blue enclosed disputed writing stamped and marked as Q1 and the blue enclosed standard writing stamped and marked as A1 to A15 have been written by one and the same person.." 7. As per documentary evidence, the date of birth of Ms. "A" was 01.03.1991, therefore, on the date of occurrence she was sixteen years of age. It is relevant to mention here that copy of note-book was produced, in which reason or death was disclosed by Ms. "A" as well as other document viz. original copy of roll number issued by the Education Department for appearing in 8th class examination were also sent to FSL for determination of hand-writing. Both these documents were the part of FSL report. In the investigation, statements of mother of deceased Smt. Jubeda and brother of deceased, Aslam Khan were recorded by the investigating officer in which they categorically stated that on the date of incident appellant, father of deceased, committed rape with the deceased. 8. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused appellant for offence under Section 306 and 376 of IPC in the court of A.C.J.M., Pali from where the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Pali for trial, but later on transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No.2 Pali, for trial. 9. The learned trial court after framing charges under Sections 306 and 376 IPC commenced the trial. Sessions Judge (FT) No.2 Pali, for trial. 9. The learned trial court after framing charges under Sections 306 and 376 IPC commenced the trial. In support of prosecution case, statements of 21 witnesses were recorded and 22 documents were exhibited. After recording the evidence of prosecution, statements of accused appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he gave following explanation, which reads as under: ^^esjh vkSjr o esjh cPPkh eh vkil esa ugha curh Fkh rFkk esjs llqjky okyksa ,o esjh vkSjr ds vkil es ugh curh gS ftl dkj.k jaft'k py jgh gSA esjs iq=h dks esjh vkSjr rax ijs'kku djrh Fks] ftlls ijs'kku gksdj esjh cPph ejh gSA jaft'k ds dkj.k >wBk eqdnek fd;k gSA^^ 10. In defence, three witnesses were produced before the trial court and 19 documents were exhibited by the accused appellant. After recording the entire evidence the learned trial court heard final arguments and vide judgment dated 05.03.2011 convicted the accused appellant Amin Khan @ Aamin Khan for offence under Sections 376 (1) & 306 of IPC and passed sentence mentioned above. 11. At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is not challenging the incident but it is not rarest of rare case in which maximum punishment provided for offence under Section 376 IPC can be imposed. As per learned counsel for the appellant, it is a case in which the appellant himself reported the incident to the police and the dead body of his daughter was taken to hospital by the police in pursuance of information (Ex.P/14) given by him on 15.07.2009 and after postmortem, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to him by the police in the proceedings initiated u/s 174 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the accused appellant for offence under Section 376 (1) IPC may kindly be reduced to ten years? R.I. while maintaining the conviction for offence under Sections 376 and 306 of IPC. 12. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants invited our attention towards the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Dutt Sharma Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2014 4 SCC 375 and in recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. 12. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants invited our attention towards the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Dutt Sharma Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2014 4 SCC 375 and in recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sanjay Kumar @ Sunny, 2017 CrLJ 1443 and recent judgment of this Court in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.479/2008- Shesha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 17.07.2017. 13. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is submitted that there is no question to reduce the sentence passed against accused appellant for offence u/s 376 (1) IPC because it is a case in which the accused appellant, Amin Khan @ Aamin Khan had committed rape with his own minor daughter Ms. "A", who on account of such offence committed with her, committed suicide by jumping into the water tank constructed in her house. It is further submitted that though there was some delay in lodging the FIR by the wife of accused appellant against her own husband, but that delay occasioned due to threat given to her by the appellant/husband, and she was not in a position to file complaint to the police immediately after the incident. The allegations of Smt. Jubeda (PW.3) are very serious and her testimony cannot be disbelieved because offence was committed with her minor daughter, who ultimately committed suicide due to rape committed by her father, accused appellant Amin Khan @ Aamin Khan. 14. While inviting our attention towards statements of witnesses viz. PW.4- Anwar (brother-in-law of accused appellant), PW.5- Aslam (son of appellant and brother of deceased), PW.7- Batun, PW.9- Sultan Khan, PW.11- Bismillah Khan, & PW.12- Neni Bano. All these witnesses categorically stated on oath in their statements that on number of occasion, deceased Ms. "A" made complaint against her father Amin Khan with regard to attempt made by him for committing forcible inter-course and even Smt. Jubeda (PW.3) reported the whole incident on oath. Therefore, there is no question to disbelieve the statements of the witnesses so as to reduce the sentence passed against the accused appellant for committed offence u/s 376 IPC with his own minor daughter. 15. Therefore, there is no question to disbelieve the statements of the witnesses so as to reduce the sentence passed against the accused appellant for committed offence u/s 376 IPC with his own minor daughter. 15. With regard to submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that it is a rarest of rate case, in which maximum punishment is to be imposed, it is argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that in the case laws relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant viz. Sunil Dutt Sharma and State of HP Vs. Sanjay @ Sunny the offence was not committed by father with his minor daughter that too in the presence of wife or other family members. Therefore, upon facts, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants, are not applicable and the appeal filed by the appellant may kindly be dismissed. 16. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the entire evidence and finding arrived at by the learned trial court. It emerges from the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that appellant is not disputing the incident but his only prayer is to reduce the sentence passed by the trial court for offence u/s 376 (1) of IPC from life imprisonment to ten years' RI. To consider the aforesaid prayer, we have perused the statements of PW.3-Smt. Jubeda and PW.5-Aslam. In the statements not only explanation is given by the witnesses for delay in registration of FIR but there are serious allegations against the appellant for committed rape with his own minor daughter and as per testimony of these witnesses, although Smt. Jubeda made efforts for rescue but she failed to save her daughter as accused appellant bolted himself along with his daughter and committed forcible sexual assault qua his own minor daughter. We have also perused the statement of other witnesses viz. PW.4-Anwar, PW.5-Aslam, PW.7-Batun, PW.9- Sultan Khan, PW.11-Bismillah Khan, & PW.12-Neni Bano. All these witnesses categorically said that behaviour of appellant towards his daughter was so bad which is not only an offence against individual but it is an offence against the society. 17. Upon consideration of entire evidence and fact that before committing suicide the deceased herself wrote a note disclosing the reason for committing suicide, which was ultimately found to be proved in the FSL report. 17. Upon consideration of entire evidence and fact that before committing suicide the deceased herself wrote a note disclosing the reason for committing suicide, which was ultimately found to be proved in the FSL report. The deceased disclosed the reason for committing suicide which is obviously against the appellant, father. All circumstances and statements of PW.3-Smt. Jubeda, loudly speaks that it is a case in which father committed rape with his own minor daughter. 18. In our society, parents (father and mother) take care of their children to best of their ability. A father earns for betterment of his family and looks after his family and also saves his children from every difficulty, even at the cost of his life also. But, here in this case we may observe that it is a case in which a father has committed a heinous offence of rape with his own minor daughter and it not only amounts to an offence against the individual but against the society. The appellant being father himself tarnished the relationship of father and daughter i.e. a protector becomes predator. Therefore, the prayer of the accused appellant to reduce the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years sentence deserves rejection because reducing the sentence will cause damage to society and relationship of father and daughter. 19. It is also worthwhile to observe that no wife will made such type of serious allegations against her own husband and no daughter will make false allegation against her father and no other close relative will level such allegation for committing rape by father with his daughter. It is a glaring example in which not only wife made allegations against the appellant but deceased daughter before committed suicide disclosed the reason in writing for committing suicide due to act of accused appellant. 20. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the judgment impugned so as to reduce the sentence because the facts and circumstances available on record are glaring example of committing heinous offence in the society. 21. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.