JUDGMENT : R.G. AVACHAT, J. 1. The appellant was the accused in Special Case (Atrocity), No.23/2018 before the Additional Sessions Judge-5, Nanded. The case of the prosecution was as under. 2. The victim P.W.1 “V” was around 16 years of age in the year 2017-2018. Her mother and the victim would work as maid servants. Her mother would serve at the house of the appellant. A day about six months prior to 19/6/2019, the victim had been to the house of the appellant to do the household/ domestic work. It was 10.00 in the morning. The appellant’s son and daughter-in-law had gone to the hospital. The appellant alone was at his residence. He pulled the victim close to him. The victim tried to make hue and cry. The appellant gave her threats. The appellant thereafter undressed the victim and did sexual intercourse with her. He threatened the victim of dire consequences, if she reports the matter to anyone else. 3. The days went by. The victim realized to have been conceived. Due to advancement of such pregnancy, medical termination was not possible. The victim delivered a baby. 4. While the victim was found to be pregnant, she lodged the First Information Report (F.I.R. – Exh.14) against the appellant. The appellant was arrested. Blood samples of both, the appellant and the victim were obtained. Both of them were medically screened. On delivery of the baby, its blood sample too was obtained. The bloods of the trio were submitted to FSL for DNA profiling. 5. The DNA report indicate the appellant and the victim to be the biological parents of the new born. 6. It is not in dispute that the victim was a juvenile at the relevant time. On appreciation of the evidence in the case, the Trial Court convicted and consequently sentenced the appellant. The operative order of conviction and sentence reads thus : 1) Accused Brijmohan Gokulprasad Jaiswal is held guilty and convicted U/Sec.235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence under Section 376(2)(i), 506 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 5(j)(ii) punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Section 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 arising out of Crime No.282/2018 of Police Station Nanded Rural. 2) Accused Brijmohan Gokulprasad Jaiswal is held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 5(j)(ii) punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and shall pay fine of Rs.25,000/ (Rs.Twenty Five Thousands only). In default of payment of fine, he should suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3) Accused is held guilty and convicted under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, but no separate sentence is provided as sentence is imposed under Section 5(j)(ii) punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 4) Accused is held guilty and convicted U/Sec.235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of two years and shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rs.One Thousand only). In default of payment of fine, he should suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. 5) Accused is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and shall pay fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousands only). In default of payment of fine, he should suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 6) Out of the fine amount, an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousands only) be paid to the victim as compensation, after appeal period is over. 7) All the substantive sentences are to run concurrently. 8) Copy of the order be sent to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Nanded for determination and payment of suitable compensation to the victim, as per rules. 7. The learned Advocate for the appellant argued the appeal only for reduction in quantum of sentence. According to him, the appellant was 66 years of age at the relevant time. He is now around 74 years of age. He would submit that, the Trial Court did not hear the appellant on the quantum of sentence. According to him, the offence was punishable with minimum imprisonment of ten years, which may extend to imprisonment for life which shall mean till the end of natural life of the culprit. 8. He is now around 74 years of age. He would submit that, the Trial Court did not hear the appellant on the quantum of sentence. According to him, the offence was punishable with minimum imprisonment of ten years, which may extend to imprisonment for life which shall mean till the end of natural life of the culprit. 8. The Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Close reading of the evidence on record would indicate that the offence was not committed with a view that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste and with a further view to undermine/ lower down her with her caste. We, therefore, find the conviction of the appellant and consequential sentence for offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to be unwarranted. The victim had kept mum for over six months. Except her testimony that the appellant had threatened her of dire consequences, there is nothing to indicate that the victim or her mother had such a fear of the appellant and the appellant had really extended such threat. We, therefore, set aside the appellant’s conviction for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code as well. The appellant’s conviction for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) and under Section 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is maintained. 9. Reading of the judgment impugned herein indicate the Trial Court, in paragraph No.107 of its judgment observed thus : “107) The accused committed rape on an innocent, helpless and poor girl of 16 years old. So the offense committed by the accused is heinous crime. Offence is very serious in nature and against the child age of 16 years. It is violation of her right of privacy. It is an assault on the body, mind and privacy of victim. Many such cases are not even brought to light because of social stigma attached thereto. It is to be noted that at the time of incident accused was 66 years old. Accused has chosen helpless poor girl for satisfying his evil lust. The accused is very dangerous for the society. The 66 years old aged person i.e. accused has totally destroyed the precious life of victim girl only to fulfill his evil lust. It is to be noted that at the time of incident accused was 66 years old. Accused has chosen helpless poor girl for satisfying his evil lust. The accused is very dangerous for the society. The 66 years old aged person i.e. accused has totally destroyed the precious life of victim girl only to fulfill his evil lust. Because of the evil act of accused, victim girl aged 16 years had to undergo unbearable delivery pains without any of her fault. It is a crime against humanity and against entire society. Therefore, the accused is not entitled to show any leniency.” 10. It is further observed in paragraph No.109 that, both these offences were punishable with minimum imprisonment of rigorous imprisonment for ten years, which may extend to imprisonment for life which shall mean till the end of natural life of the culprit, and shall also be liable to fine. The Trial Court, therefore, preferred to sentence the appellant to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months. 11. The operative order is conspicuously silent to observe that the imprisonment for life to mean till the end of natural life of the appellant. 12. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case namely, the appellant was 66 years of age at the relevant time, and the fact that the offence was not reported for over next six months until the victim realized to have conceived. She was around 16 years of age. We, therefore, propose to reduce the sentence of appellant to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 13. With this, the appeal partly succeeds. Hence the order : ORDER : (i) The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) Conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(j)(ii) punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment for life is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The sentence of fine and the term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine to stand unaltered. (iii) Conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and consequential sentences are hereby set aside. The sentence of fine and the term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine to stand unaltered. (iii) Conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and consequential sentences are hereby set aside. Fine amounts, if paid, on that count be refunded to the appellant.