JUDGMENT Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. - None appears for the appellant thus Shri Rakesh Kumar Trivedi was appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the accused. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated 30th July, 2012, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Sikar, Headquarters at Srimadhopur convicting the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 376, 307 and 323 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offences under Sections 376 and 307 IPC each. He has been further sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in case of default, to further undergo ten days simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 IPC. 3. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Trivedi, Amicus Curiae, nominated by the court, submits that no evidence exists to connect the accused-appellant with the offences under Sections 307, 323 & 376 IPC. He has been convicted based on the statement of prosecutrix. The statements of other witnesses are not sufficient to corroborate the story given by the prosecutrix thus accused-appellant deserves to be acquitted of the offences. It is moreso when even for the offence under Section 307 IPC, neither eye-witness nor any witness exists to corroborate the statement of prosecutrix thus case under Section 307 IPC is also not made out. 4. It is also stated that a First Information Report was lodged with gross delay and story given by prosecutrix in regard to help of two other persons for causing rape was not found correct as charge was not framed for offence under Section 376(2)(g) but was for 376 IPC. The alternative prayer is to reduce the sentence from life imprisonment to seven years imprisonment. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal. She submits that there is no delay in lodging FIR. The prosecutrix remained unconscious for long and the FIR was lodged when she came out from it. The intervening period was almost of 51/2 months. 6. It is also stated that prosecutrix has made a specific statement for commission of offences under Section 376 and 307 IPC. Her statement itself is enough to convict the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC. The corroborative evidence also exists for conviction of the accused-appellant. The intervening period was almost of 51/2 months. 6. It is also stated that prosecutrix has made a specific statement for commission of offences under Section 376 and 307 IPC. Her statement itself is enough to convict the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC. The corroborative evidence also exists for conviction of the accused-appellant. Hence, the prayer made by the appellant for his acquittal or to substitute the punishment from life imprisonment to seven years imprisonment for the offence under Sections 376 and 307 IPC may not be accepted. 7. We have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The facts available on record shows registration of FIR with Police Station Khandela, District Sikar on 18th March, 2009. It was alleged that accused-appellant Jitu @ Jitendra with the help of two other persons attempted to commit rape with the prosecutrix on 15th August, 2008 at around 2.00 PM. When the prosecutrix raised voice then accused threw her in the well to save themselves. She has suffered many injuries due to throwing in the well. She remained unconscious for nearly 51/2 months in the hospital and when got cautious, disclosed the story about the offence. 9. After registration of the FIR, the Police submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant. The charges were framed for the offences under Sections 307, 323 & 376 IPC. When the appellant did not confess the guilt, trial commenced. The prosecution produced 14 witnesses to support the case apart from 18 documents so exhibited during the course of trial. The prosecutrix has stated about the incidence on 15th August, 2008. The specific allegation is against the appellant for attempt to rape but then going contrary to story given by prosecutrix in the FIR. The statements were made in the court for commission of offence, whereas, in the FIR, it is only shown for the attempt. 10. The prosecutrix has further stated about commission of offence under Section 307 IPC. The prosecution has produced corroborative evidence and perusal of the medical report initially prepared on 16th August, 2008 shows three injuries out of throwing the injured in the well. The subsequent report, after injured remained unconscious for 51/2 months, does not show any injury on the private part though the period intervening is substantial thus merely for that reason, the prosecution's case cannot be thrown. The subsequent report, after injured remained unconscious for 51/2 months, does not show any injury on the private part though the period intervening is substantial thus merely for that reason, the prosecution's case cannot be thrown. The FIR was not otherwise lodged with delay. The injured remained unconscious for nearly 51/2 months thus FIR could not have been lodged unless the story is disclosed by her. 11. Learned trial court has, however, considered the case beyond charges framed against the appellant. It is by referring Section 376(2)(g) IPC, whereas, the charge was for the offence under Section 376 IPC. 12. In view of the above, we find reasons to cause interference in the sentence imposed by the trial court. What was weighing in the mind of the trial court is based on extraneous consideration for imposition of sentence. It is even in ignorance of the fact that two other persons were not convicted along with appellant. It has not come on record as to whether charge sheet was filed against them or not. Taking into consideration overall facts on record, we are inclined to cause interference in the sentence, which is substituted in the following manner: (i) For offence under Section 307 IPC - Sentence is substituted to 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in place of life imprisonment and in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. (ii) For offence under Section 376 IPC - Sentence is substituted to 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in place of life imprisonment and in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. (iii) For offence under Section 323 IPC - Sentence is maintained. All the sentences to run concurrently. 13. The appeal is partly allowed with the aforesaid. The Amicus Curiae would be paid remuneration by the State Government immediately on receipt of copy of this order.