JUDGMENT : (K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.) The respondent/State, represented by its Public Prosecutor in Sessions Case No.256 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool (hereinafter referred to, as ‘learned Assistant Sessions Judge’), is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. Vide Judgment, dated 30.06.2005 in Sessions Case No.256 of 2004, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the respondent/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 451 and 376 (2) (f) read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) in terms of Section 235 (2) read with 222 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month for the offence punishable under Section 451 IPC; accused was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (f) read with Section 511 of the IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused was given set-off under Section 428 CrPC for the period of detention undergone by him during the course of investigation and trial. 3. The substance of the charge as against the accused is that on 06.09.2003 at about 2.00 p.m. the accused trespassed into the house of P.W3 and committed rape on his daughter (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the victim girl’) and thereby, the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 451 and 376 (2) (f) of IPC. 4. Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that: (a) On 06.09.2003 at about 9.00 a.m. P.W3 and his wife viz. Bhaskaramma, went to agricultural work in their field, leaving their daughter i.e. the victim girl, who is aged about 13 years, in the house with the company of her grandmother viz. 4. Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that: (a) On 06.09.2003 at about 9.00 a.m. P.W3 and his wife viz. Bhaskaramma, went to agricultural work in their field, leaving their daughter i.e. the victim girl, who is aged about 13 years, in the house with the company of her grandmother viz. Salamma; that at about 2.00 p.m. the accused trespassed into the house of the victim girl and asked about her grandmother; that the victim girl told him that her grandmother went to attend nature calls, on that, the accused lifted the victim girl, laid down her in the Gadipadu of the house, removed her petty coat and her innerwear and forcibly committed rape on her and kissed her on the cheeks; that the victim girl raised hue and cries and in the meanwhile, the grandmother of the victim girl entered into the house and on seeing her, accused left the victim girl and ran out from the house by pushing the grandmother, aside; that P.W4, who was passing in front of the house of the victim girl, witnessed the accused coming out from the house. (b) On 06.09.2003 at about 5.00 p.m. the incident was reported to Gudur Police. Ex.P1 is the report. Basing on Ex.P1- report presented by the victim girl, P.W10, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudur Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.28 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 376 IPC and issued FIR. Ex.P12 is the original FIR. (c) P.W13, Inspector of police, Gudur Police Station took up investigation. During the course of investigation, on 07.09.2003, police arrested the accused and seized his clothes in the presence of mediators under the cover of a Panchanama. Ex.P2 is the Seizure Panchanama, dated 07.09.2003. The accused was arrested and got remanded to judicial custody. On 11.09.2003, P.W13 referred the accused to the Government Hospital for Potency Test. Ex.P6 is the Potency Test Report, dated 11.09.2003. P.W13 forwarded the material objects to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis under letter of advice. Ex.P13 is the copy of letter of advice. After receipt of all relevant documents and completion of investigation, P.W13 filed the charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the Charge Sheet. 5. Ex.P6 is the Potency Test Report, dated 11.09.2003. P.W13 forwarded the material objects to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis under letter of advice. Ex.P13 is the copy of letter of advice. After receipt of all relevant documents and completion of investigation, P.W13 filed the charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the Charge Sheet. 5. Accused was examined under Section 228 CrPC and charges under Sections 451 and 376 (2) (f) IPC were framed and read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P20 on behalf of prosecution, besides exhibiting M.Os 1 to 8. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence. 7. When the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC, he denied the incriminating evidence, brought on record, against him. 8. The plea of accused is one of denial. After going through the entire evidence and material documents that were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution, learned Assistant Sessions Judge, considering the evidence of the victim girl, held that there was no penetration and hymen of the victim girl was intact, the accused made attempt to commit rape on her and thereby convicted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 451 and 376 (2) (f) IPC read with Section 511 IPC and imposed sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month for the offence punishable under Section 451 IPC; accused was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (f) read with Section 511 of the IPC. Challenging the above quantum of sentence imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the State preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 9. Challenging the above quantum of sentence imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the State preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 9. Sri Panini Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the appellant/State would contend that the victim girl was aged about 13 years on the date of the incident and the accused, who was aged about 21 years, a married person, taking advantage of the loneliness of the victim girl, made attempt to commit rape on her. The evidence of P.W9, Assistant Professor, Medical College, Kurnool, coupled with Ex.P10-Sexual Offence Certificate, dated 11.09.2003 corroborates the act of accused in making attempt to commit rape over the victim girl as Ex.P9- Chemical Analysis report revealed that human semen and spermatozoa was detected in the specimen of vaginal fluid. The accused, who is a lust loaded person, is entitled for award of long incarceration, as there are no adequate and special reasons including the extenuating circumstances to impose such a meagre sentence by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. 10. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/accused would contend that the evidence of the victim girl itself revealed that she had not attained the age of puberty by the date of her evidence deposed before the Court. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, having taken into consideration of Ex.P10, which was issued by P.W9, Assistant Professor, who opined that the hymen of the victim girl was intact, came to a conclusion that there was no penetration made by the accused and rightly held that no offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, was made out. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge having gone through the evidence and case facts, convicted the accused and imposed adequate sentence after recording special reasons including the extenuating circumstances and it does not require interference by this Court. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Criminal Appeal. 11. Now the point for determination: “Whether the sentence imposed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool vide Judgment, dated 30.06.2005 in Sessions Case No.256 of 2004, was inadequate, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, and the circumstances of the case? 12. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Criminal Appeal. 11. Now the point for determination: “Whether the sentence imposed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool vide Judgment, dated 30.06.2005 in Sessions Case No.256 of 2004, was inadequate, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, and the circumstances of the case? 12. Before going into merits of the appeal by appreciating the evidence brought on record, it is apposite to state that the clamour or claim for comeuppance viz., deserved punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offence, is a continuous and continuing demand, based on civic sense and unfailing in categories of serious offences, where more than individual interest is also involved. The above rule of proportionality in providing punishment is not be failed as otherwise it will impact the society. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441 . held that 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 the 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 but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. Meagre 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. In Bawa Singh’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to the earlier decisions in Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar & Ors. , [ (2013) 9 SCC 516 .] , and Shailesh Jasvantbhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. , [ (2006) 2 SCC 359 .] , with agreement, in paragraphs 13 and 14 thereof, as under:- “13. In Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar, this Court has observed that: “10. … it is the duty of the courts to consider all the relevant factors to impose an appropriate sentence. The legislature has bestowed upon the judiciary this enormous discretion in the sentencing policy, which must be exercised with utmost care and caution. The punishment awarded should be directly proportionate to the nature and the magnitude of the offence. … it is the duty of the courts to consider all the relevant factors to impose an appropriate sentence. The legislature has bestowed upon the judiciary this enormous discretion in the sentencing policy, which must be exercised with utmost care and caution. The punishment awarded should be directly proportionate to the nature and the magnitude of the offence. The benchmark of proportionate sentencing can assist the Judges in arriving at a fair and impartial verdict.” The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that: “11. … The cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. This Court has repeatedly stressed the central role of proportionality in sentencing of offenders in numerous cases.” 14. In Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat, the Hon’ble Apex Court opined that: “7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of „order? should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: „State of criminal law continues to be–as it should be–a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society.? Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. 8. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. 8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, 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, etc.” 13. The accused, who was convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, has not challenged the conviction and sentence, but it is the State which has filed the present Criminal Appeal, challenging the quantum of sentence imposed against the accused. A perusal of grounds of appeal goes to show that the appellant/State is not aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in the impugned Judgment, however, the grievance of the appellant/State is with regard to adequacy of sentence imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Even if the State prefers appeal aggrieved by only the quantum of sentence, this Court, being the Appellate Court, this Court has to consider the conviction, as the appeal inherently involves the validity of the conviction, and cannot address the sentence without first determining the validity of the conviction. Therefore, having regard to the above observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, now, it has to be seen as to whether the punishment imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge against the accused, is proportionate to the gravity of the proved offence, by appreciating the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. 14. The victim girl, who was aged about 13 years by the date of her giving evidence, was examined as P.W1. She deposed in her evidence that on 06.09.2003 at about 10.00 a.m. her parents left to the fields, her elder brother went to the High School and her younger sister went to her school; that at about 2.00 p.m. P.W2, grandmother of the victim girl went to attend nature calls and at that time, her younger brother viz. She deposed in her evidence that on 06.09.2003 at about 10.00 a.m. her parents left to the fields, her elder brother went to the High School and her younger sister went to her school; that at about 2.00 p.m. P.W2, grandmother of the victim girl went to attend nature calls and at that time, her younger brother viz. Ramanjaneyulu went outside to play with other children; that the accused, after ascertaining the absence of inmates in the house of the victim girl, entered inside the house of the victim girl, caught hold her two hands, lifted her and threw her in the manger, removed his and her inner-wears, rubbed his body over her vulva; that the accused kissed her both cheeks and that some liquid fell in her vulva and also on her both thighs; that on hearing the weeping of the victim girl, P.W2, grandmother of the victim girl, came and on seeing her arrival, the accused escaped from the place by pushing P.W2. The victim girl narrated the entire incident to P.W2 and a report was submitted to the police. 15. A perusal of the evidence of P.W1 goes to show that the accused made an attempt to commit rape over the victim girl by throwing her into the manger, which is meant for keeping fodder to the cattle and on seeing the arrival of P.W2, grandmother of the victim girl, the accused fled away. Indisputably, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident, but, P.W2, on hearing the cries of the victim girl, witnessed the accused fleeing away from the house by pushing her aside. Though, none was present when the incident occurred, subsequent to accused fleeing away from the house of P.W1 on seeing the arrival of P.W2, the victim girl narrated the entire incident to her grandmother. Therefore, the evidence of the victim girl is trustworthy and such evidence is wholly reliable. 16. To corroborate the version of the victim girl to some extent i.e. presence of accused on the date of the incident at particular time, P.W4, who is circumstantial witness. He deposed in his evidence that on 06.09.2003, while he was passing in front of the house of P.W2, he witnessed the accused coming out from the house of the victim girl. He deposed in his evidence that on 06.09.2003, while he was passing in front of the house of P.W2, he witnessed the accused coming out from the house of the victim girl. Therefore, it can be concluded basing on the evidence of P.W1 that the accused made an attempt to commit sexual assault over her and he fled away from the house of the victim girl on seeing the arrival of P.W2, which was also witnessed by P.W4. 17. P.W9, Assistant Professor, Medical College, Kurnool deposed in her evidence that she issued Ex.P10, Sexual Offence Certificate, dated 11.09.2003. As per the opinion of P.W9, she examined the victim girl and she found that the hymen of the victim girl was intact and there was no penetration over the hymen of the victim girl by the accused. Accepting the evidence of P.W9, coupled with Ex.P10-Certificate, it can be concluded that the accused made an attempt to commit rape of the victim girl. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge rightly convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 451 and 376 (2) (f) IPC. 18. Coming to the quantum of sentence imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month for the offence punishable under Section 451 IPC; accused was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (f) read with Section 511 of the IPC. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge directed that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently by giving set-off under Section 428 CrPC for the period of detention undergone by him during the course of investigation and trial. 19. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge directed that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently by giving set-off under Section 428 CrPC for the period of detention undergone by him during the course of investigation and trial. 19. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State would contend that the victim girl was aged about 13 years by the date of the incident and the accused taking advantage of the absence of the inmates of the house, made an attempt to commit rape of the victim girl and in a case of this nature, undue sympathy while imposing punishment, shall not be shown over the accused and the sentence imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge needs to be enhanced, as there are no mitigating and extenuating circumstances emanating from the case record to impose such a meagre sentence. 20. The accused was convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 451 and 376 (2) (f) read with 511 IPC. The offence of an attempt is comparatively a minor offence and the stages illustrated in commission of the offence are that, the offender intending to commit an offence, makes preparation and intentionally does an act towards the commission of that offence, which is frustrated in its completion. A perusal of the submission made by the accused at the time of hearing of quantum of sentence, it discloses that he has to look after his old aged mother and his wife, who gave birth to a male child, three days prior to the date of judgment, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, having regard to the nature and severity of the offences, the criminal history, and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, aiming for a sentence that is both just and proportionate, imposed the aforesaid sentence, which holds good and warrants no enhancement by interference of this Court. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on proper appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, had rightly found the accused guilty of the offences and accordingly, convicted the accused and imposed sentence, which warrants no interference by this Court. 21. In the result, the Criminal Appeal No.278 of 2008 is dismissed confirming the Judgment, dated 30.06.2005 passed in Sessions Case No.256 of 2004 by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions in this Criminal Appeal, if any, shall stand closed.