JUDGMENT P.K. Lohra, J. - Assailing the judgment dated 11th of March, 2010, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jodhpur (for short, 'learned trial Court'), accused-appellant has laid this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'). 2. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court indicted appellant for offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(g) and 323 IPC and acquitted him for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC. For offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, the learned trial Court sentenced appellant punishment of life-term imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo sentence for six months' simple imprisonment whereas for offence under Section 323 IPC he is sentenced for six months' simple imprisonment. The learned trial Court also ordered that both the sentences to run concurrently. 3. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case is that on 25th of February, 2007, at about 7:30 PM, complainant P.W.3, father of the prosecutrix, submitted written report Ex.P/7 at Police Station Osian. It is stated in the report that his daughter (prosecutrix) is studying at Ghewra School. The report further unfurls that on 23rd of February, 2007, at about 1:00 PM, one Ms. Neetu gave a phone call to the school informing the prosecutrix to leave school compound immediately for reaching Ghewra Bus-Stand. The report also contained recitals that at Ghewra Bus-Stand Bhanwaroo is waiting for her with Bolero Jeep. As per report, responding to the phone call, prosecutrix left the school after taking permission from Manager but when she reached the destination, Bolero Jeep was not available at the bus-stand. Thereafter, she made a phone call to Bhanwaroo, who then informed her that he is waiting for her at some distance from busstand on Tinwari Road. The report also revealed some facts concerning Ms. Neetu, solicited by the prosecutrix from Bhanwaroo, and his enticing/alluring her to board the jeep on some pretext. 4. After travelling for about 3-4 kilometers from Tinwari, Bhanwaroo allowed appellant waiting there to board the jeep and later on both of them took jeep at a secluded place and ravished the prosecutrix is also narrated in the report. Factum of beating the prosecutrix by both the accused persons on putting resistance against their nefarious acts and her suffering injuries during scuffle too find mention in the report. Factum of beating the prosecutrix by both the accused persons on putting resistance against their nefarious acts and her suffering injuries during scuffle too find mention in the report. Subsequent to commission of rape and other offences by the accused persons including the appellant, as per report, the prosecutrix was dropped outside Ghewra village with a threat to life and word of caution not to divulge information about the incident to anyone. Due to threat, the prosecutrix did not inform anyone in the school but after returning home narrated tragic saga to her mother, who in turn conveyed the same to the complainant, also comes to the fore from the report. 5. Upon completion of investigation, police submitted chargesheet against three accused persons. In the charge-sheet Accused Mukesh Kanwar @ Mugli @ Neetu was charged for offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 363, 366, and 376 IPC, whereas accused appellant and Vijay Kumar @ Bhanwarlal were charged for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 323, 376(2)(g) IPC before the concerned Magistrate. Later on, the concerned Magistrate, by resorting to Section 209 Cr.P.C., committed the case to Sessions Court and finally the Sessions Judge transferred the same to learned trial Court. 6. The learned trial Court, upon consideration of the record and documents submitted therewith, and hearing submissions of accused persons as well as prosecution, discharged Smt. Mukesh Kanwar @ Mugli @ Neetu for the charged offences by resorting to Section 227 Cr.P.C. However, the learned trial Court after considering the submissions of prosecution and accused found grounds for presuming that appellant has committed offences which are triable by Sessions Court so as to frame charges against him for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(g), 323 and 120- B IPC. When the appellant is confronted with the charges, he denied all of them and thereupon he was put on trial. It so happened that before the learned trial Court a dispute was raised about the age of accused Vijay Kumar @ Bhanwarlal and after inquiry he was declared juvenile but the said order was challenged before this Court by way of revision. Be that as it may, the learned trial Court proceeded with the trial of the appellant for the charged offences. 7. In order to bring home guilt of the accused-appellant, prosecution examined 18 witnesses including the prosecutrix Ms. "S" (P.W.1) and complainant Om Prakash as P.W.3. Be that as it may, the learned trial Court proceeded with the trial of the appellant for the charged offences. 7. In order to bring home guilt of the accused-appellant, prosecution examined 18 witnesses including the prosecutrix Ms. "S" (P.W.1) and complainant Om Prakash as P.W.3. Besides oral evidence, prosecution also submitted requisite medical reports and FSL reports for substantiating the charges. During trial, total 33 documents were exhibited. 8. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he completely repudiated the prosecution case. In support of his defence, appellant exhibited 4 documents viz., Ex.D/1 School Admission Form, D/2 School Admission Register, D/3 & D/4 statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of complaint's brother and Bhanwarlal respectively. The learned trial Court, thereafter, heard final arguments and by the impugned judgment convicted appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) and 323 IPC and awarded sentences as aforementioned. The learned trial Court, however, acquitted appellant for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366 and 120-B IPC. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Dhirendra Singh, submits that while convicting appellant for the charged offences, learned trial Court has completely overlooked visible improvements, contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecutrix. It is argued by learned counsel that coaccused Vijay Kumar @ Bhanwarlal was having intimacy with the prosecutrix is clearly unfurled from her statements, and her admission of not knowing appellant before the incident posed a question of great significance, which has not been addressed in the impugned judgment. He, therefore, urged that finding of the learned trial Court indicting appellant for the charged offences is per-se vulnerable. Learned counsel has strenuously urged that factum of appellant's alleged involvement in commission of offence has come to the fore during trial, therefore, in absence of identification parade, finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Court is under serious clouds. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that mentioning name of the appellant in report Ex.P/7 by complainant (P.W.3) on the basis of information of the prosecutrix, wherein she has not disclosed his identity and name, is a clear case of false implication, which has escaped notice of learned trial Court. Delay in lodging FIR is also canvassed by learned counsel to castigate veracity of prosecution story. Delay in lodging FIR is also canvassed by learned counsel to castigate veracity of prosecution story. It is also argued by learned counsel that statements of the prosecutrix are incongruous and if her testimony is scrutinized in the light of statements of complainant P.W.3 and other witnesses then it is rather difficult to indict the appellant for the charged offences. 11. Learned counsel has also submitted that no tangible evidence was produced by the prosecution to prove age of the prosecutrix and yet the learned trial Court has recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant for commission of rape of a minor. Learned counsel has further argued that entire prosecution case is edificed on the phone call from Ms. Neetu, who was arraigned as one of the accused in the charge-sheet but later on discharged was a mitigating circumstance not taken into consideration by the learned trial Court while indicting the appellant. Emphasizing on a vital fact that prosecutrix had intimate relationship with coaccused Vijay Kumar @ Bhanwarlal, at whose instance she left her school for the destination, learned counsel submits that the same has unequivocally unearthed serious loopholes and pitfalls in the prosecution story which is completely eschewed by the learned trial Court. 12. Acquittal of the appellant by the learned trial Court for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC is also buttressed by the learned counsel to question reliability of prosecution case. Dilating on the medical evidence, it is argued by learned counsel that the same ought to have been examined by learned trial Court in the light of other ocular evidence and some of the admitted facts surfacing a real doubt or a doubt founded upon the reasons in adherence of golden rule of criminal jurisprudence, i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel, therefore, contends that the impugned judgment is not sustainable. 13. Alternatively, learned counsel has submitted that even if conviction of the appellant is sustained for the charged offences, he deserves some reprive in the matter of punishment. Elaborating his submissions in this regard, learned counsel contends that appellant is under incarceration for last almost twelve and half years, which is sufficiently adequate sentence for the charged offences in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstance of the instant case. 14. Elaborating his submissions in this regard, learned counsel contends that appellant is under incarceration for last almost twelve and half years, which is sufficiently adequate sentence for the charged offences in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstance of the instant case. 14. E. Converso, learned Public Prosecutor submits that conviction of the appellant for the charged offences is based on sound appreciation of evidence which warrants no interference. It is further submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that testimony of prosecutrix is clear and unequivocal showing involvement of the appellant in commission of rape on her, besides causing injuries of simple hurt. 15. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that medical evidence was a clinching evidence to establish commission of rape on prosecutrix, therefore, rightly construed by the learned trial Court. While referring to FSL Reports, learned Public Prosecutor submits that traces of human sperm on panty of prosecutrix (Ex.P/4) and report (Ex.P/5) are properly considered by the learned trial Court while recording finding of guilt against the appellant. It is also urged by learned Public Prosecutor that a cumulative reading of statements of the prosecutrix in conjunction with medical evidence has conclusively proved the offence of rape, and therefore, said finding of the learned trial Court cannot be faulted. 16. Countering argument of learned counsel for the appellant, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that discharge of Ms. Neetu and alleged intimacy of the prosecturix with co-accused Bhanwarlal was not of any credence in the backdrop of appellant's criminal delinquency. He, therefore, submits that this ambitious plea of learned counsel merits repudiation. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that acquittal of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC is having no consequence insofar as conviction of the appellant for offence of gang rape inasmuch as the learned trial Court has convicted appellant by relying on cogent and reliable evidence of prosecutrix as well as corroborating medical evidence. Refuting argument of learned counsel for the appellant about delay in lodging FIR, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the FIR was lodged within 48 hours, therefore, considering the rural background of the victim's family, same cannot be construed as delayed action. 17. Joining issue with the learned counsel for the appellant on alternative plea of reducing the sentence, it is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that considering the age of prosecutrix, interference in sentence is not warranted. 17. Joining issue with the learned counsel for the appellant on alternative plea of reducing the sentence, it is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that considering the age of prosecutrix, interference in sentence is not warranted. We have bestowed our considerations to the arguments advanced at Bar, perused the impugned judgment and also scanned entire record of the case. 18. In a case involving an accused for offence of ravishing a girl/lady, her deposition is most fundamental to prove the charge. What should be the methodology of proof in a case of rape cannot be put in a straight-jacket and every case depends on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. When evidence of the prosecutrix is cogent and trustworthy a contrary opinion of the doctor, which is not based on any reason, deserves no credence for recording conviction of the accused. 19. As usual, the prosecution case in the instant matter is essentially founded on the version of the prosecutrix duly supported by the statements of her father complainant P.W.3 and other witnesses. For ascertaining the finding of guilt recorded by learned trial Court, at the threshold, it would be appropriate for us to examine the testimony of prosecutrix Ms."S"(P.W.1). Prosecutrix P.W.1, in her statements, has castigated appellant for commission of rape on her and further disclosed his name and identity on the basis of information by co-accused Bhanwarlal. Prosecutrix (P.W.1) has further deposed that upon her resistance against commission of rape, she was given beatings by the appellant and other co-accused Bhanwarlal. During her statements, she has also identified appellant. The factum of narrating the entire incident to her mother is also clear and unequivocal from the statement of P.W.1. 20. Although prosecutrix (P.W.1) was subjected to thorough cross-examination by the defence counsel, but, in our opinion, defence has miserably failed to impeach her testimony. Attempts made by the defence counsel to discredit her testimony are essentially with reference to her age and factum of leaving school upon receiving phone call of Ms. Neetu, which we feel, is unworthy of any credence, in the backdrop of attributed criminal delinquency to the appellant as well as testimony of P.W.3 complainant and P.W.7 Bhanwarlal. That apart, in her crossexamination, P.W.1 has also stated that she was forced to board the Bolero Jeep. Neetu, which we feel, is unworthy of any credence, in the backdrop of attributed criminal delinquency to the appellant as well as testimony of P.W.3 complainant and P.W.7 Bhanwarlal. That apart, in her crossexamination, P.W.1 has also stated that she was forced to board the Bolero Jeep. The suggestion of the defence counsel about implication of the appellant in the case due to previous scuffle between him and complainant is also denied by the witness. In totality, if the statements of prosecutrix (P.W.1) are critically analyzed then there remains no room of doubt to record our indignation about veracity of her testimony. Therefore, reliance placed on the testimony of prosecutrix PW1, by the learned trial Court, cannot be fouled. 21. Besides statement of P.W.1, Complainant Om Prakash (P.W.3) is also corroborating her version. That apart, P.W.3 has also proved date of birth of the prosecutrix. Smt. Gomti (P.W.5), mother of the prosecutrix, too has also corroborated her testimony. Likewise, Piyush Kumar (P.W.6) has also supported the prosecution case. Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat (P.W.18) Medical Jurist has also testified to prove commission of rape on the prosecutrix besides six other simple injuries on her person, allegedly caused by blunt weapon. P.W.18 has also proved duration of the injuries as two to four days old from the date of examination of the prosecutrix. The testimony of P.W.18 is further corroborated by report dated 26th of February, 2007 (Ex.P-5/Ex.P20). This report of the Medical Board contained recitals "there is evidence of recent sexual intercourse". Similarly, Injury Report of the prosecutrix (Ex.P-6/Ex.P-19) is also in consonance and conformity with the statement of Dr. Jagdish Jugtawat. In common parlance, for an offence of rape testimony of the victim is sufficient to bring home guilt, however, in the instant case, the ocular evidence of the prosecutrix is further strengthened by the medical evidence, and therefore, challenge to the findings recorded by the learned trial Court by the appellant is not sustainable. 22. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that prosecutrix went with co-accused Bhanwarlal of her own volition and duly acknowledged by the learned trial Court is also not worth any credence vis-a-vis offence of rape. By applying normal rule of prudency victim's volition to accompany accused cannot be construed as her concurrence for commission of rape. 22. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that prosecutrix went with co-accused Bhanwarlal of her own volition and duly acknowledged by the learned trial Court is also not worth any credence vis-a-vis offence of rape. By applying normal rule of prudency victim's volition to accompany accused cannot be construed as her concurrence for commission of rape. Therefore, acquittal of appellant for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC is by no means a mitigating circumstance having even indirect ramification on his conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. Law is trite that in case victim is minor her consent is immaterial and cannot be a valid defence against offence of rape much less gang rape. The clear and unequivocal deposition of the victim (P.W.1) that she was subjected to gang rape by the appellant and co-accused Bhanwarlal conclusively attracts statutory presumption about absence of her consent envisaged under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 23. Plea of the accused about delay in lodging FIR too is superfluous and looking to the rustic background of the victim's family, same cannot be construed as fatal to discard the prosecution case. Moreover, the so called delay of hardly 48 hours in case of serious offence of rape is wholly insignificant because it involves the prestige and reputation of the family of the victim. Thus, in overall fact scenario, we are unable to find any infirmity in the finding of guilt recorded by learned trial Court and therefore record our satisfaction that finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Court is based on sound appreciation of evidence. 24. Now adverting to the alternative plea of the learned counsel for appellant for giving him some respite in the matter of punishment, we would like to examine it with pragmatic approach by invoking ideal scheme of criminal justice. The doctrine of Lek Talionix, i.e., law of retaliation has gone obsolete in the modern criminal jurisprudence and therefore it requires metaphorical and symbolical application. The object of punishment in the scheme of modern social science is correction of the wrong-doer and not wrecking gratuitous punitive vengeance on the criminals. In the present era, Courts are by and large adopting therapeutic approach in the matter of punishment while shunning punitive approach with the solemn object of correction and eventual reformation of the accused persons. 25. The object of punishment in the scheme of modern social science is correction of the wrong-doer and not wrecking gratuitous punitive vengeance on the criminals. In the present era, Courts are by and large adopting therapeutic approach in the matter of punishment while shunning punitive approach with the solemn object of correction and eventual reformation of the accused persons. 25. Supreme Court, in Bavo alias Manubhai Ambalal Thakore Vs. State of Gujarat, (2012) AIR SC 979 , where the accused was held guilty for offence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC for committing rape on 7 years old girl and was awarded life imprisonment by the trial Judge and confirmed by the High Court, the Supreme Court observed: "11. Considering the fact that the victim, in the case on hand, was aged about 7 years on the date of the incident and the accused was in the age of 18/19 years and also of the fact that the incident occurred nearly 10 years ago, the award of life imprisonment which is maximum prescribed is not warranted and also in view of the mandate of Section 376(2)(f) IPC, we feel that the ends of justice would be met by imposing RI for 10 years. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant informed this Court that the appellant had already served nearly 10 years." 26. In Shimbhu & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, (2014) AIR SC 739 , the Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue with regard to imposition of sentence for the offence of gang rape, observed: "11. A perusal of the above provision shows that the legislative mandate is to impose a sentence, for the offence of gang rape, for a term, which shall not be less than 10 years, but it may extend to life and shall also be liable to fine. The proviso to Section 376(2) Indian Penal Code, of course, lays down that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than 10 years. Thus, the normal sentence in a case, where gang rape is committed is not less than 10 years though in exceptional cases, the Court by giving "special and adequate reasons", can also award the sentence of less than 10 years. 12. Thus, the normal sentence in a case, where gang rape is committed is not less than 10 years though in exceptional cases, the Court by giving "special and adequate reasons", can also award the sentence of less than 10 years. 12. It is a fundamental rule of construction that a proviso must be considered in relation to the main provision to which it stands as a proviso, particularly, in such penal provisions. Whether there exist any "special and adequate reason" would depend upon a variety of factors and the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. This Court, in various judgments, has reached the consensus that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in that behalf for universal application." 27. From the available material including the arrest memo of the appellant, it is amply clear that he was arrested on 28.02.2007 and therefore, by now he has completed total incarceration period of almost twelve and half years. A very relevant fact that incident relates back to 2007, i.e. more than a decade old, and the appellant is acquitted for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B IPC too cannot lose our sight to examine alternative plea with objectivity. Admittedly, at the time of committing offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC by the appellant, minimum sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment was prescribed with a discretion conferred on the Court to extend the same upto life imprisonment. If the sentence handed down to the appellant is examined in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, then, unhesitatingly, in our view, reasons recorded by the learned trial Court are not convincing. The factors, which were relevant and germane to the matter, apart from some of the mitigating circumstances, are completely overlooked by the learned trial Court while exercising its sentencing discretion. In totality, we feel that sentence of life imprisonment, awarded by the learned trial Court, is excessive and harsh. Our view finds support of a Bench decision in the matter of Shri Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan,2018 4 RajLW 3212 (Raj) , wherein, in almost identical circumstances, substantive sentence of life imprisonment is altered and reduced to minimum sentence of ten years. 28. Our view finds support of a Bench decision in the matter of Shri Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan,2018 4 RajLW 3212 (Raj) , wherein, in almost identical circumstances, substantive sentence of life imprisonment is altered and reduced to minimum sentence of ten years. 28. It is also noteworthy that in the instant case the appellant has been found guilty of committing gang rape on a minor girl, but it is not the case of the prosecution that appellant is a habitual offender. Moreover, at the time of commission of offence accused was in his prime youth, aged about 23 years, which too is a legitimate consideration for slashing the substantive sentence in adherence of reformative approach. Thus, while following the mandate in Bavo's case (supra) and taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we consider it appropriate to give some reprieve to the appellant in the order of sentence by reducing the same commensurating with his proven delinquency. 29. Consequently, the appeal of the appellant is allowed in part and while maintaining his conviction for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g) and 323 IPC, the concurrent substantive sentence awarded to him is altered and reduced to twelve and half years, which he has already undergone. The fine imposed by the learned trial Court for both the offences and default sentences are also affirmed. The appellant may be set at liberty, if not required in any other case, upon his depositing the requisite fine and furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, in terms of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.