JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Accused-appellant, Deva Raval has preferred present appeal through jail to assail judgment dated 24.01.2017 rendered by the Court of Additional Session Judge No. 2, Beawar (for short 'the trial court') in Session Case No. 23/2016 (88/2012, 41/2012 and 63/2012) arising out of FIR No. 51/2012 registered at Police Station Tadgarh. The trial court held the appellant guilty of offences under Sections 376, 354 and 342 IPC. Having convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences, the trial court by separate order of even date sentenced the appellant as under: Name of Appellant Section Sentence Deva Raval 376 IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's additional rigorous imprisonment. 354 IPC Two years rigorous' imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' additional rigorous imprisonment. 342 IPC One year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's additional rigorous imprisonment. 2. The sentences awarded on three counts were ordered to run concurrently. It was also ordered by the trial court that in case amount of fine of Rs. 50,000/- is realised, the same should be paid to the victim as compensation. 3. Criminal proceedings in the present were set at motion on the basis of written complaint (Exhibit P-3) instituted by Bhola Raval (P.w.3), brother of the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Beawar for offence under Section 376, 342 and 323 IPC. Said criminal complaint was sent to the Police Station Tadgarh under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 and the said police station on 03.07.2012 at 6.40 P.M. registered case against the appellant for offence under Section 376, 342 and 323 IPC. In the criminal complaint, Bhola Raval (P.W.3) stated that he is father of two minor daughters aged 14 years and 10 years. Names of two daughters are being withheld to protect their identity and henceforth, they shall be referred as prosecutrix victim no. 1 and victim no. 2. It was further stated that accused is the younger brother of the complainant and having fallen in the bad company, he spoil-ed his habits. Names of two daughters are being withheld to protect their identity and henceforth, they shall be referred as prosecutrix victim no. 1 and victim no. 2. It was further stated that accused is the younger brother of the complainant and having fallen in the bad company, he spoil-ed his habits. The complainant further averred that he and his wife Badami Devi (P.W.4) used to leave the house for doing labour work and in their absence, accused Deva being uncle of the victims, by giving threat, used to commit rape with the elder daughter, i.e. victim No. 1. It was further stated that elder daughter of the complainant, i.e. victim No. 1 due to fear and threat had not complained against her uncle. It was further averred in the complaint that on 15.06.2012, younger daughter of the complainant, i.e. victim no. 2 was forcibly confined in a room by the accused and he had committed rape with her. When complainant returned, younger daughter, i.e. victim no. 2 by weeping informed that her clothes have been spoil-ed by the accused. On enquiry by the complainant, his wife, younger daughter, i.e. victim no. 2 informed that uncle (kaka) (chacha) had forcibly inserted his penis in the vagina. At that stage, elder daughter, victim no. 1 also wept and informed that accused (uncle) Deva from last so many days by showing knife was committing rape with her and due to fear, she could not disclose anything. Complainant called his younger brother Deva and confronted him with the facts, upon which he attempted to liquidate the complainant. The complainant further stated that he had gone to the police station, but the police had not registered report of rape and had only arrested the accused Deva for offence under Section 151 Cr.P.C., 1973 Hence, written complaint is being filed. 4. From the above, it is clear that the appellant sexually exploited two daughters of his elder brother. Though the complainant had earlier made complaint to the police but the police had not registered a case and it only arrested the accused under Section 151 Cr.P.C., 1973 Thus, the reasons have been stated to explain the delay and why the necessity arose to file the criminal complaint. Before we deal with the statements made by the victims, it will be apposite for us to notice medical evidence. Dr. Before we deal with the statements made by the victims, it will be apposite for us to notice medical evidence. Dr. Trilok Chand Gagrani (P.W.11) and Durga Deep Makkad (P.W.12) were the members of the medical board consisting of three doctors and vide Exhibit P-2 they clinically examined victim no. 1. As per Exhibit P-2, age of victim No. 1 has been recorded as 15 years. As per physical examination of victim no. 1, she was averagely built and nourished. Her axillary hairs were present and they were blackish brown in colour. Breast was developed. Areola and nipples were present. Pubic hairs were present but shaved. No signs of injury (fresh) were present on the body anywhere. On gynaecological check up it was noted that secondary sex character was developed. Breast was developed. Areola and nipples were present. Axillary hairs were present, which were brownish and black in colour; public hairs were present and shaved. On examination of private parts, it was noted that vagina admitted two fingers. Hymen was not present. Hymen was old torn. No old or fresh injury was found on the private parts. Vaginal swabs were taken and handed over to the police. As per opinion of the medical board, patient was habitual to intercourse as her vagina admitted two fingers. Medical board reserved final opinion regarding rape to await the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. 5. Dr. Trilok Chand Gagrani (P.W.11) and Durga Deep Makkad (P.W.12) also examined victim no. 2 and prepared medical report which is Exhibit P-8. It was recorded therein that as per physical examination of victim no. 2, she was not having any axillary and pubic hair, no sex character was present. Victim no. 2 was poorly built and poorly nourished. She was having height of 133 cm and weight of only 19 Kg. On local examination of private parts, doctors noticed that vagina did not admit finger. Hymen was present. Vaginal swabs were taken and handed over to police. Doctors opined that since vagina did not admit finger, hymen was present, final opinion regarding rape shall be given after receipt of report from Forensic Science Laboratory. A perusal of report submitted by State Forensic Science Laboratory (Exhibit P-20) reveals that human semen was only detected on underwear which was in packet in "C" and on vaginal swabs and other material no semen was detected. Dr. A perusal of report submitted by State Forensic Science Laboratory (Exhibit P-20) reveals that human semen was only detected on underwear which was in packet in "C" and on vaginal swabs and other material no semen was detected. Dr. Taresh Jain (P.W.14) has conducted ossification test upon victim no. 1 and 2. This witness has proved his opinion given in Exhibit P-16 and Exhibit P-17 qua victim No. 1 and victim no. 2 respectively. As per opinion given in Exhibit P-16, victim no. 1 was aged between 14 to 16 years and as per opinion given in Exhibit P-17, victim no. 2 was aged between 8 to 10 years. Admittedly, both the victims are minor and no argument has been raised qua their age. 6. Now we shall deal with evidence of the victims. Victim no. 1 appeared in the trial court as P.W.1 and stated that she had studied up to VI class. She was having a younger sister, i.e. victim no. 2. Her parents used to go to earn their livelihood by doing labour. On one evening, at about 8.00-9.00 P.M., accused called her in a room by asking that his meal be brought inside the room. The accused closed the door of the room and had committed rape with her. This witness further stated that she narrated the incident to her parents. Her uncle called her on the roof and quarrelled with her. This witness stated that she again narrated the incident to her mother. At that time her father had gone out of the house and after he returned, her mother narrated entire incident to him. Police was called and they arrested the accused. The witness further stated that earlier in the field where samadhi has been made, accused had committed rape with her. Thereafter, he committed rape with her in the house of Narain. She became pregnant and was having pregnancy of two months. The accused brought tablet which she had consumed. Then she was taken to a nurse where the accused pretended that she was a married lady. Thereafter, she was taken to another nurse. She was administered a tablet and the pregnancy was aborted. She started bleeding excessively. Her mother took her to doctor, who administered her injection. The witness stated that accused has committed wrong act with her younger sister and then she disclosed all the facts to the police. Thereafter, she was taken to another nurse. She was administered a tablet and the pregnancy was aborted. She started bleeding excessively. Her mother took her to doctor, who administered her injection. The witness stated that accused has committed wrong act with her younger sister and then she disclosed all the facts to the police. This witness in the court stated that she had told the police regarding pregnancy and abortion. However, she admitted that these facts have not been recorded in her police statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 A suggestion was also given to the witness that her father is having dispute of amount of Rs. 50,000/- and the accused was pressing hard her father to return such amount. This witness admitted that before the incident there was dispute between her father and the accused and said dispute was compromised at the behest of the elders of the village. 7. Victim no. 2 aged 8 years also appeared in the Court as P.W.2 and stated that her parents used to go to do labour work. She was present in the house along with her sister. Accused called both the sisters and asked them to press his feet. This witness stated that after some time accused fell upon her. He removed her clothes. She narrated this incident to her father. Accused also had bitten her cheek. This witness stated that the accused had removed her undergarment and had fallen upon her. She further stated that the accused had confined her sister in a room and had sent her out of the room. She had narrated the incident to her mother. Her mother refused to send her daughter inside the room because the accused used to fall upon her sister. This witness further stated that the day her uncle had fallen upon her, she had gone inside the room, but she cannot tell the time. 8. Bhola Raval (P.W.3), complainant and father of the victims in the Court stated that on 15.06.2012, he came from Pali. He was at his house with his wife. They came at about 9.00 P.M. Accused was present in his room. He asked his elder daughter to bring a broom and clean the room. Her elder daughter refused to do so. Then the accused said that victim no. 2 be sent. He was at his house with his wife. They came at about 9.00 P.M. Accused was present in his room. He asked his elder daughter to bring a broom and clean the room. Her elder daughter refused to do so. Then the accused said that victim no. 2 be sent. The accused, in the night of 15th June, made younger daughter of the complainant to forcibly sleep in his room. In the morning, victim no. 2 told that accused used to perform wrong act, upon which he told the child not to go in the room of the accused. Thereafter, he went to take fodder for the goats. When he returned, he saw that doors of the house were closed. He banged the doors and heard that accused was giving abuses. Her wife opened the door and told that elder daughter informed that accused had committed rape with her. She further informed that she had pregnancy and accused had taken victim No. 1 at Badakheda where he disclosed a nurse that she was married and she did not want a child. Deva told the nurse to give a tablet but she told that tablet was not available there. Thereafter, a tablet was administered to victim no. 1 and her periods started. He stated that he informed the police that, ^^;g ckr lkjh ckr crkus ds ckn eSusa iqfyl dks pqipki Qksu fd;kA iqfyl dks VkVx<+ okyksa dks crk;k fd vk/kk ?k.Vk esa ugha vk;s rks eMZj gks ldrk gS eSus mudks lkjh ckr crk;hA**. This witness stated that after an hour, the police came and arrested the accused. This witness further deposed that her daughters were taken by the police to the medical experts, who conducted their examination. This witness stated that the police had gone to the nurse and had requisitioned the register dated 5th May, wherein it was noted that his daughter was having pregnancy of 11/2 months. This witness, in cross examination, stated that the police had arrested accused on 16.06.2012. He further stated that his daughter had disclosed all facts to him on 16.06.2012. This witness in cross examination stated that the accused had taken his daughter inside his room by showing knife. This witness, in cross examination, stated that the police had arrested accused on 16.06.2012. He further stated that his daughter had disclosed all facts to him on 16.06.2012. This witness in cross examination stated that the accused had taken his daughter inside his room by showing knife. But, this witness admitted in cross examination that he is 'halwai' and accused used to take meals with him and after taking the meals, he never used to pay him and he had made a report to this effect to the police also. 9. Badami Devi (P.W.4), mother of the victims, has broadly accepted that her daughters had disclosed conduct of the accused, which she narrated to her husband and that they had lodged the report to the police. We need not notice statements of other witnesses, as we are of the view that their testimony is not required to be noticed in the judgment, as gist of the material facts has already been recorded. 10. Mr Pradeep Choudhary, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised following arguments for our consideration: (i) Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that as per the complaint, the complainant became aware regarding factum of rape of his both daughters on 15.06.2012. It is contended that the complainant admitted that he had lodged a report to the police of Police Station Tadgarh. He has submitted that the Investigating Officer, Manvendra Singh (P.W.13) has admitted that the accused was arrested under section 151 CRPC, 1973. Highlighting this fact, learned Amicus Curiae has referred to the statements of victim no. 1 (P.W.1); Bhola Raval (P.W.3) to contend that on the same day, the accused was arrested, while he was taking rest in his room. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that had factum of rape revealed to the police on the said date, the accused would have been arrested for offence of rape under section 376 IPC. (ii) Learned Amicus Curiae contended that it has come in evidence that there was monetary dispute between the two brothers that was resolved on the intervention of village elders and hence arrest of the appellant in June, 2012 was only for the monetary dispute and allegation of rape had not subsisted on that day. It is contended that monetary dispute, which was persisting between the parties, after consultations and deliberations, was given colour of rape case. It is contended that monetary dispute, which was persisting between the parties, after consultations and deliberations, was given colour of rape case. It is contended that criminal complaint (Exhibit P-3) was filed after consultations and deliberations with the lawyer and it is at that stage that story of rape was concocted. (iii) Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that it is admitted by Badami Devi (P.W.4) that land of the appellant is being cultivated by the complainant and hence rape case was a device to usurp the land of the appellant. Learned Amicus Curiae relied upon the testimony of Santosh Raval (P.W.6), brother of both the victims, who was aged about 13 years and stated that regarding the land there used to be quarrel between his father and uncle. Learned Amicus Curiae has highlighted cross examination of Santosh Raval (P.W.6) wherein he has stated as under: ^^;g lgh gS fd nsok o esjs ikik ds chp tehu tk;nkn ds caVokjs ckcr >xM+k gksrk jgrk gSA vkSj bl dkj.k ;g fjiksVZ ntZ djkbZA** (iv) Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that so far as victim no. 2 is concerned, there is no evidence of rape and her medical evidence belie the allegation that accused had committed rape upon victim no. 2. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor has defended impugned judgment and submitted that the same suffers from no infirmity. He has adopted the reasoning given by the trial judge to record conviction of the appellant and has urged that we should affirm the judgment rendered by the trial court. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and carefully perused the record. 12. The only question, which arises for our consideration is that whether a father, over a trivial monetary dispute, will put reputation of her daughters at stake, who were aged less than 18 years. It has come in evidence that victim no. 1 was habitual to sexual intercourse. It has also come in evidence that appellant used to stay in the same house with his brother. It is common knowledge that within the four corners of the house, elder members of the family have been sexually exploiting the young be it male or female. Normal standards regarding appreciation of evidence cannot be resorted to in a rape case, especially in a case where victims are children of one family. It is common knowledge that within the four corners of the house, elder members of the family have been sexually exploiting the young be it male or female. Normal standards regarding appreciation of evidence cannot be resorted to in a rape case, especially in a case where victims are children of one family. It is common knowledge that most of the times, relations tend to suppress such facts under the carpet. In the present case, the father has stated that he had narrated the facts to the police, ^^pqipkik**. It is a great dilemma for a father to decide whether reputation of young girls, who were yet to be married, should be put at stake and how family reputation should be saved. We cannot ignore that there was trivial monetary dispute between two brothers, but that never can be the reason to implicate the brother by putting reputation of girls at stake. We cannot brush aside testimony of the victims and we cannot accept that they will be puppet in the hands of the parents to settle the monetary dispute. It has been stated in the complaint itself that the matter was reported to the police, but the police had arrested the accused only under section 151 Cr.P.C., 1973 and had not sent him for trial. In these circumstances, the father, after mustering enough courage, was compelled to lodge the report. Therefore, we uphold the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC recorded by the trial court. We also maintain conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 354 and 342 IPC. 13. Having upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC, we have to decide that whether sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court under Section 376 IPC calls for interference or not. Life imprisonment is the maximum sentence prescribed under Section 376 IPC. The courts should not award maximum imprisonment until grave circumstances are divulged by the prosecution. In the present case, on both the victims there is no injury. Sexual relationship between the accused and victim no. 1 continued for a long and she became pregnant. Furthermore, the incident had taken place and was reported in the year 2012. The appellant has already suffered protracted trial of 5 years. In examination by the doctors, age of the appellant has been indicated as 36 years, therefore, as on today, he is middle aged. 1 continued for a long and she became pregnant. Furthermore, the incident had taken place and was reported in the year 2012. The appellant has already suffered protracted trial of 5 years. In examination by the doctors, age of the appellant has been indicated as 36 years, therefore, as on today, he is middle aged. After taking note of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and to balance them, we are of the view that interest of justice will fully meet in case the appellant is sentenced to 12 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC. 14. Consequently, we set aside the sentence of life imprisonment awarded upon the appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentence him to undergo 12 years' rigorous imprisonment. Reduced sentence under Section 376 IPC shall run concurrently along with sentence awarded on other counts by Trial Judge. 15. We find that the appellant belongs to the poor section of the society. Present appeal is being defended at the behest of High Court Legal Service Committee. Even though it is stated that he is having land, but no description thereof has been given in the prosecution case, therefore, we set aside imposition of fine by the trial court upon the appellant while sentencing him under Section 376 IPC. However, we order that victim no. 1 shall be entitled to compensation under The Victim Compensation Scheme formulated by the State of Rajasthan under Section 357-A CRPC. We further direct that the Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority shall disburse the compensation under the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme formulated under Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure by maintaining all sensitivity so that name and identity of the victim no. 1 is not revealed and her future life and prospects are not eclipsed. 16. The appeal is partly allowed in the manner as indicated here in above.