JUDGMENT Sudhansu Dhulia, J. - This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 15.04.2013 passed by learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Session Trial No. 163 of 2012, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376(2)(f) and Section 506(2) of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC, and to undergo two years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) under Section 506(2) of IPC, with default stipulations. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The incident is of 29.02.2012 i.e. prior to the amendment brought in the Indian Penal Code. The First Information Report was lodged by Nanhe Lal, father of the victim, on 01.03.2012 at 11:00 A.M. at P.S. Kotwali City, Haridwar. The FIR states that the informant is a permanent resident of Village Tahatajpur, P.S. Vithri Chainpur, District Bareilly and presently resides with his family in the rented house of one Shiv Kumar Azad at Brahmpuri, Haridwar. Yesterday i.e. on 29.02.2012 in the night his daughter started crying and then she confessed to her mother that she has an extreme pain in her vagina. She then said that in the night at 10:00 P.M., when she had gone to bathroom, she was caught and raped by David S/o Vishnudas (the present accused/appellant). David runs a tea shop near "Alaknanda Ghat" and like them is also a tenant of the same landlord. This incident was disclosed by the victim to the mother at 2 O' clock in the night, of which he was informed in the morning, and thereafter they promptly lodged the first information report at Police Station Kotwali City, Haridwar on 01.03.2012 at 11:00 A.M. It was also disclosed by the complainant that the age of her daughter is 11 to 12 years. 3. Immediately thereafter the girl was sent for medical examination. The medical report dated 01.03.2012 reads as under:- "L.E.: Breast is in process of development Auxiliary & pubic hair not well developed. Labia majora & labia minora not well developed. Hymen is torn and lacerated. Abrasion of size: 1.5 x 1 cm, situated at the , blood clot present in vagina. Swelling & redness present around vagina. The medical report dated 01.03.2012 reads as under:- "L.E.: Breast is in process of development Auxiliary & pubic hair not well developed. Labia majora & labia minora not well developed. Hymen is torn and lacerated. Abrasion of size: 1.5 x 1 cm, situated at the , blood clot present in vagina. Swelling & redness present around vagina. Two vaginal smear slide taken for determination and confirmation of spermatozoa, advised X-Ray Knee joint, Elbow joint and Wrist joint for determination and confirmation of age." 4. The supplementary report of the same date i.e. 01.03.2012 which is of vaginal swab and X-ray states that no definite opinion can be given about rape, however, the vulva injury may be due to sexual assault. The age of girl is below 14 years. 5. Although no definite opinion was given about the rape by the doctor, but it was clear that the girl was sexually assaulted and she was below 14 years. 6. Thereafter the statement of the girl was recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of CrPC on 03.03.2012. She states before the Magistrate that she is a student of Class V and studies in a primary school. The name of her mother is Ramshri. She further states that in all they are eight siblings. The bathroom of their residence is on the ground floor, and on 01.03.2012 to answer the call of the nature when she went to the bathroom in the night, David came inside the bathroom, closed her mouth from his hand, dropped her on the floor and then he fell on top of her, after pulling away his trouser as well as the garments of the victim, he raped her. She tried to raise an alarm but could not succeed as her mouth was closed by David. Thereafter, David also threatened her that she should not disclose this incident to anyone else he will kill her parents. By that time, blood was also oozing out from her vagina. She further states that she did not tell this incident to anyone and quietly went to sleep. When the pain increased and became unbearable, she told this incident to her mother. 7. The police after investigation filed the chargesheet in the matter under Section 376 (2) (f) and Section 506 of IPC. 8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. When the pain increased and became unbearable, she told this incident to her mother. 7. The police after investigation filed the chargesheet in the matter under Section 376 (2) (f) and Section 506 of IPC. 8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Thereafter the accused was also examined under Section 313 of CrPC, in which he denied the allegations and stated that he has been falsely implicated due to the enmity. 9. The defence also produced one Dinesh Singh as D.W.1, who was basically a witness who certifies the character of the appellant/accused to be alright and states that he never used to harass or tease any women or has a bad reputation, though Dinesh Singh, D.W. 1 does say that on 01.03.2012, he did hear that the daughter of Nanhe Lal has been raped and sexually assaulted. This witness was cross-examined by the prosecution but nothing worthwhile has come out. 10. The most important witness in this case is definitely the victim herself, who as per the medical evidence is below 14 years of age and as per the prosecution, the age of the victim is between 11 to 12 years and she is a student of Class V. But before we come to the evidence given by the prosecutrix, we must come to the evidence of P.W. 1, who is the father of the prosecutrix. His examination-in-chief was done on 27.08.2012, where he reiterates the story of the prosecution verbatim as he had stated in his first information report. The defence, however, did not cross-examine him on the same day but took adjournment and ultimately this witness was cross-examined on 09.01.2013 i.e. after more than four months. In his cross-examination, he denied that the report was lodged by him, and retracts from his version given in his examination-in-chief. 11. P.W. 3 Smt. Ramshri, the mother of the prosecutrix, was examined on 17.01.2013, i.e. after the cross-examination of PW1, i.e. father of the victim. She too seems to be won over by the defence as she narrates an entirely different story in her examinationin-chief and though she states that her daughter narrated to her in the night that she has been raped but she did not disclose the name of any person, she only said that she has been raped by an unknown person! She too seems to be won over by the defence as she narrates an entirely different story in her examinationin-chief and though she states that her daughter narrated to her in the night that she has been raped but she did not disclose the name of any person, she only said that she has been raped by an unknown person! She denies having taken the name of the accused/appellant at any point of time. This witness was declared hostile. A question was put by the prosecution to this witness i.e. P.W. 3 that she has turned hostile as an agreement has been reached between them and she has received money from the accused. This allegation, however, she denies. 12. The victim was then examined as P.W. 2 on the same date i.e. on 17.01.2013, when PW 3, her mother was examined. After being assured that the girl is capable of giving reply to the questions, she was put to her examination-in-chief. She states in her examination-in-chief that they are eight brothers and sisters and four brothers and sisters are elder to her. She states that she goes to school in the morning and come back at about 04:30 PM. They stay at a place called "Brahmpuri" in a rented accommodation on the first floor. The latrine and bathroom are on the ground floor and to use these facilities they have to climb down to the ground floor. She further states that on 29.02.2012, when she had gone to bathroom, a person closed her mouth from behind and raped her. She was hurt and blood too came out of her vagina. The blood was all over her clothes which she was wearing and she was in great pain. The person who raped her had threatened her that she should not tell this incident to anyone or else he would kill her parents. After the incident, she came back to her room and then later disclosed the incident to her mother. 13. Until this point this important witness has not disclosed the name of the accused. But then she is a child after all and inspite of the obvious tutoring she cannot help but speak the truth. Continuing with her examination-in-chief, she then says that the "accused" stays in the same place, as a tenant and she calls him by the name "David"! But then she is a child after all and inspite of the obvious tutoring she cannot help but speak the truth. Continuing with her examination-in-chief, she then says that the "accused" stays in the same place, as a tenant and she calls him by the name "David"! She then narrates the recovery of clothes, etc., and her medical examination. 14. Obviously attempts were made to win over this witness as well, but truth came out after all as she has without any element of doubt, disclosed the name of the accused as David, who is a tenant, she says, like the rest of them, in the same building! 15. Pw 4 Dr. P.R. Pandey is the Doctor who conducted the medical examination of the victim. She admits that the girl was brought to her by a lady constable. The girl had disclosed to her that she was sexually assaulted by a person. Her hymen was torn and there were injuries on vagina. This witness then states that though no definite opinion of rape can be given, but the injuries sustained by the victim may have come from the sexual assault. 16. In view of the evidence and material available on record, we find no ground for interference in the findings of the trial court, as the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, we uphold the judgment and order dated 15.04.2013 so far as it relates to conviction of the appellant/accused. 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the quantum of sentence. The sentence which has been awarded to the appellant is "life imprisonment", which is the maximum punishment prescribed under the law for the crime. Having considered the relevant aspects of the matter, however, we are of a considered view that the sentence is liable to be reduced. Instead of spending his entire life in jail, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice will be served if the appellant is sentenced for 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. While reducing the sentence from "life imprisonment" to 10 years rigorous imprisonment, we have also considered the mitigating circumstances which are in favour of the appellant. The appellant has a young wife and minor children, which need to be looked after. 18. While reducing the sentence from "life imprisonment" to 10 years rigorous imprisonment, we have also considered the mitigating circumstances which are in favour of the appellant. The appellant has a young wife and minor children, which need to be looked after. 18. Consequently, we reduce the sentence from life imprisonment to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, which shall include the sentence already undergone. The appellant is on bail. His bail is cancelled and the bail bonds are discharged. Let the appellant be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence. 19. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court record be sent to the concerned trial court for onward compliance.