Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.86 OF 1996 *** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 11.03.1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gaya, in Sessions Trial No.457 of 1993. *** NAVEEN KUMAR son of Bharosa Prasad Singh, resident of Mohalla- Durga Bari, P.S.-Civil Line, District- Gaya …Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …Respondent *** For the appellant : Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sudama Singh & Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Advocates For the State : Mr. J. K. Singh, A. P. P. *** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH *** Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant has been convicted under sections 376/511 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years by judgment dated 11.03.1996 passed in Sessions Trial No. 457 of 1993 by the Sessions Judge, Gaya. 2. The prosecution case is that on 08.11.1992, the appellant lured the daughter of the informant and took her on the roof and attempted to commit rape upon her. 3. During trial, the prosecution in all examined eight witnesses, out of whom, P.W.1 is the father of the victim girl, whereas, P.W.2 is uncle, P.W.6 is mother and P.W.3 is the victim herself. P.W.4 is a hear say witness and P.W.5 is tendered. P.W. 8 is formal witness, who has proved the medical report in absence of the doctor. 4. On going through the evidence of P.W.3 (the victim), it appears that she was aged about four years at the time of occurrence and seven years at the - 2 - time of her deposition and had fully supported the fact that the appellant had attempted to commit rape upon her. This fact has been corroborated by P.W.1 and 6, who are the parents of the victim, and there is no reason to disbelieve the manner of occurrence as narrated by them. From the deposition of the Investigating Officer no major discrepancies could be pointed out which may render the evidence of these three witnesses suspicious. 6. In view of such, I find no merit in the appeal. However, considering that the occurrence has taken place in the year 1992 and the appellant was merely about 20 years of age on the date of occurrence and the fact that he has remained in custody for about a year, the sentence awarded to the appellant is modified to the period already undergone by him during trial. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with modification in the sentence. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 12th May, 2011 NAFR/ JA/-