JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant is assailing the judgment and order dated 23.01.2012 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial 15/2010, by and under which, the appellant-accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to payment of fine of Rs.1000/-. The accused is acquitted of offence punishable under Section 354 and 376 of the IPC. 2. Heard Shri A.R. Kaplay, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Ms. T.H. Udeshi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 3. The genesis of the prosecution lies in oral report dated 24.10.2009 lodged by the victim (P.W.1) at the Mohadi Police Station, the gist of which is thus: The victim, who was then aged 10 years is a student of the 5th standard and is residing at Dahegaon with her family. The incident occurred on 24.10.2009. The victim was at home in view of the Diwali vacation. The mother of the victim Smt. Chandrakalabai left home at 09:00 a.m. to harvest rise. The victim and her father Dhondu (P.W.2) were at home. The accused is residing in the neighbourhood. The niece of the accused one Shradha, a resident of Bori, was visiting the accused. The victim and Shradha were playing near the house. The father of the accused Wasudo was proceeding to his field in a bullockcart. The victim and Shradha boarded the bullockcart and got down near the house of the victim. The father of the accused Wasudeo asked the victim to carry Shradha's tiffin from his house to the house of the victim and to serve Shradha lunch. The victim went to the house of the accused alone to fetch the tiffin. The accused was alone, when the victim was asked for Shradha's tiffin the accused held her near the waist, took her in another room, made her lie on the ground, removed the knicker of the victim and lowered his lower and knicker till knees. The accused then slept naked on the person of the victim, the victim started weeping loudly and told the accused that she would disclose the incident. The accused then got up from her person. The accused had touched his penis to the vagina, which however, did not penetrate in the vagina. The victim suffered from pain in vagina. The accused then slept naked on the person of the victim, the victim started weeping loudly and told the accused that she would disclose the incident. The accused then got up from her person. The accused had touched his penis to the vagina, which however, did not penetrate in the vagina. The victim suffered from pain in vagina. 4. The Mohadi Police Station registered offence punishable under Section 354, 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC on the basis of the said oral report Exh.14. The printed F.I.R. is Exh.18 on the record of the trial court. The victim was medically examined, the statements of witnesses were recorded, the accused was medically examined on 25.10.2009. The completion of investigation led to submission of the charge-sheet in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mohadi who committed the proceedings to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge (Exh.10) under Section 354, 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC. The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is of false implication. The defence is that the victim was asking the accused to put on the T.V. The accused who was tired, slapped the prosecutrix who went to her house weeping. 5. The age of the victim is not seriously challenged. Before I consider the ocular evidence on record, it would be apposite to analyze the medical evidence. The victim was medically examined by Dr. Varsha Sambhare (P.W.9) on 24.10.2009. She has deposed that the victim sustained an abrasion injury on right labia majora of size 1 cm x 5 cm, the duration of which was within six hours. The hymen was ruptured and introitus was congested. Both labia majora were swollen. P.W.9 has proved the medical examination certificate Exh.31. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that P.W.9 has mentioned in the certificate Exh.31 that no definite opinion about sexual intercourse could be given. Several situations, in which the hymen may be ruptured, are brought on record. It is extracted that in case of rape, it is expected to give opinion as regards labia minora and to mention whether the labia minora is red or tender. It is further elicited that swelling of labia majora is possible due to infection. 6. The edifice of the prosecution case is built on the evidence of the victim-P. W.1. It is extracted that in case of rape, it is expected to give opinion as regards labia minora and to mention whether the labia minora is red or tender. It is further elicited that swelling of labia majora is possible due to infection. 6. The edifice of the prosecution case is built on the evidence of the victim-P. W.1. Her deposition is consistent with the contents of the First Information Report. The victim has deposed that when she went to the house of the accused to fetch tiffin for Shradha, the accused caught hold of her waist, made her lie on the ground in another room, removed her knicker, slept on her person and touched his male organ on her private part. The victim cried out and told the accused that she would disclose the incident and went home weeping, is the deposition. 7. In the cross-examination, the victim denies the suggestion that the contents of the F.I.R. were narrated by her father or uncle. She denies that the report was reduced to writing by the police as stated by her father and she merely signed the report. It is elicited that at the time of incident her family did not own a television set and that she used to go to the house of the accused to watch T.V. She however, denies the suggestion that on occasions the accused did not allow her family to view the T.V. She denies the suggestion that she asked the accused to permit her to view T.V. and since she was insisting, an annoyed accused slapped her and she went home weeping. The victim admits that there was a quarrel between her uncle and Ashok Mate and the father of the accused prior to the alleged incident. She however, denies the suggestion that her uncle and Ashok Mate instigated the victim and her father to falsely implicate the accused. 8. P.W.2 Dhondu Rakade is the father of the victim. His deposition is that the incident was disclosed by the victim. P.W.2 states that he confronted the accused who closed the door and remained inside the house. P.W.2 apprehended that the accused will commit suicide and therefore, P.W.2 did not have any further interaction with the accused and went to the Police Station to lodge the report. His deposition is that the incident was disclosed by the victim. P.W.2 states that he confronted the accused who closed the door and remained inside the house. P.W.2 apprehended that the accused will commit suicide and therefore, P.W.2 did not have any further interaction with the accused and went to the Police Station to lodge the report. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that the contents of the report were narrated by P.W.2 and one Ashok Mate and that his daughter P.W.1 only signed on the report. It is further elicited that he was informed by P.W.1 that the accused had given a slap blow on the issue of viewing the television. 9. Ashok Mate, to whom the father of the victim P.W.2 is said to have narrated the incident and who accompanied P.W.1 and P.W.2 to the Police Station, did not support the prosecution. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned A.P.P. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination to assist the prosecution. 10. P.W.4 Vijay Meshram, then posted at Police Station Mohadi has deposed that the victim and her father P.W.2 had come to the Police Station to lodge the report and he reduced the report to writing as narrated by the victim. In the cross-examination, he is suggested that the report is recorded as narrated by P.W.2 and not as narrated by the victim. The suggestion is denied. He denies the suggestion that the victim did not state anything and merely signed on the report. 11. P.W.5 Dr. Sachin Karanjekar examined the accused. He proves the medical examination certificate Exh.22. The certificate Exh.22 does not take the case of the prosecution any further. 12. P.W.6 Satish Deshmukh, who was then posted at the Mohadi Police Station as Police Constable. He took the accused to the hospital for medical examination. The Doctor handed over blood sample, semen sample and pubic hair sample in sealed condition which was seized by A.P.I Dangre. 13. P.W.7 Rajhans Katekhaye has proved the spot panchnama Exh.26. However, he denies that blood and semen samples were seized in his presence. 14. P.W.8 Dilip Tembhekar, Gram Sewak at Dahegaon has proved the birth certificate of the victim (Exh.28). 15. P.W.10 Shamrao Dangre is the Investigating Officer. 16. The evidence of the child victim has withstood the test of cross-examination. Her testimony, which is corroborated by the medical evidence, is reliable and confidence inspiring. 14. P.W.8 Dilip Tembhekar, Gram Sewak at Dahegaon has proved the birth certificate of the victim (Exh.28). 15. P.W.10 Shamrao Dangre is the Investigating Officer. 16. The evidence of the child victim has withstood the test of cross-examination. Her testimony, which is corroborated by the medical evidence, is reliable and confidence inspiring. Her version is consistent with the First Information Report which is lodged with promptitude. The defence that the child victim falsely implicated the accused because an annoyed accused slapped her since she was asking the accused to put on T.V. is highly improbable. The evidence of the child victim is corroborated by the disclosure made to her father P.W.2. Pertinently, she has categorically denied the suggestion that on the day of the incident she insisted that she be allowed to view television and that since her insistence annoyed the accused she was slapped and went home weeping. It is indeed elicited that in the cross-examination of P.W.2 Dhondu that he was informed by the child victim that the accused had given her a slap blow on the issue of viewing television. However, it is not suggested to P.W.2 that the incident of accused having slapped the child victim occurred on the day of on which according to the child victim she was sexually molested. The admission extracted in the cross-examination of P.W.2 that the contents of the report were narrated by P.W.2 and one Ashok Mate does not detract from the testimony of the prosecutrix and that of P.W.4 who recorded the report, that it was the prosecutrix who narrated the incident in the Police Station. Be it noted, that it is not even suggested to P.W.2 that the accused is falsely implicated at the behest of one Ashok Mate and the uncle of the child victim, although such a suggestion is given to the child victim. P.W.2 is suggested that since P.W.2 thought that the accused would commit suicide, he lodged the police report against the accused. Implicit in the suggestion given is the fact that the defence is not challenging the version of P.W.2 that after the incident was narrated by P.W.1 he confronted the accused. 17. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that the prosecution has not established offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. Implicit in the suggestion given is the fact that the defence is not challenging the version of P.W.2 that after the incident was narrated by P.W.1 he confronted the accused. 17. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that the prosecution has not established offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the offence will be an attempt to commit rape punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC. In view of the ocular and the medical evidence on record, the finding reached is unexceptionable. 18. However, the learned Sessions Judge has been extremely lenient in awarding sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year. Since, I was of the prima facie opinion, that if the challenge to the conviction is ultimately dismissed, the sentence may call for enhancement, by a speaking order dated 23.11.2017, I issued notice to the accused to show cause as to why, if the appeal is ultimately dismissed and the conviction upheld, the sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge should not be enhanced. 19. The victim was 10 years old when she was sexually assaulted. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year is a travesty of justice. It would be apposite to refer to the following observations of the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Singh AIR 2015 SC 8980: “Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. 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. The sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. Meager sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without considering the degree of the offence will be counterproductive in the long run and against the interest of the society. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. Meager sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without considering the degree of the offence will be counterproductive in the long run and against the interest of the society. One of the prime objectives of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which commensurate with gravity, nature of crime and the manner in which the offence is committed. One should keep in mind the social interest and conscience of the society while considering the determinative factor of sentence with gravity of crime. The punishment should not be so lenient that it shocks the conscience of the society. It is, therefore, solemn duty of the court to strike a proper balance while awarding the sentence as awarding lesser sentence encourages any criminal and, as a result of the same, the society suffers. Imposition of sentence must commensurate with gravity of offence.” 20. The conscious of this court is satisfied that the sentence of one year awarded by the learned Sessions Judge overlooks the rights and aspirations of the victim and societal interest and the undue sympathy shown would undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. 21. In the result, I pass the following order. [i] Criminal Appeal 70/2012 is dismissed. [ii] The conviction under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC is maintained. The sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge is enhanced to four years rigorous imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs.1000/-. [iii] The bail bond of the accused shall stand cancelled. [iv] The appellant be taken into custody forthwith to serve the sentence and a compliance report be submitted to the Registry of this court within four weeks.