( 1 ) BY order dated 1. 6. 85 the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as under : (i) Under Section 363 Indian Penal Code I sentence the accused with R I. for 3 years alongwith a fine of Rs. 100. 00. In default of the payment of - fine he will suffer further R. I. for one month. (ii) Under Section 366 I. P. C. I sentence the accused with R. I. for 7 years alongwith a fine of Rs. 100. 00. In default of payment of fine he will further suffer R. l. for one month. (iii) Under Section 376 Indian Penal Code I sentence the accused with R. I. for 7 years alongwith a fine of Rs. 100. 00. In default of payment of fine he will further suffer R. I. for one month. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

( 2 ) THE appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence by way of filing the present appeal.

( 3 ) UNFORTUNATELY, learned counsel for the appellant has not cared to put in appearance inspite of the fact that the case remained on the board since 28-4-86 as item No. 1. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the State and with his help gone through the record carefully.

( 4 ) THE only grievance of the appellant appears to be that the learned trial court gravely erred in believing the evidence of the child witness who is barely 5 years of age and that even if the statement of the prosecution witnesses is believed to be true, offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code is not made out. None of the grounds-taken in the grounds of appeal are to the liking of the learned counsel for the State who mainly relies upon the evidence of Hem Lata, the prosecutrix, and Public Witness 1 Sh. Shiv Parshad Singh, aneye witness of the incident.

( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the scope of the pleas raised by the appellant, the salient features of the prosecution case have to be kept in mind. On 7-11-83 Hem Lata, who is hardly six years old, was playing with her friends Kusam, Neetu and Bablu when the accused on the pretext of getting her some biscuits picked her up and took her to public toilets. There the accused took off the salwar of Hem Lata and also his own pant. Hem Lata was made to lie on the floor and the accused made an attempt to rape her. At that point of time, Shiv Parshad Singh, who is a watchman, and was taking round of the flats and the public toilets saw the accused making an attempt to rape Hem Lata. He immediately caught hold of the accused and brought him along with the girl to a nearby DD. A. Office. Subsequently while on his way to the Police Station the accused was produced before Sukhbir Singh S. I. who recorded the statement of Shiv Parshad Singh and on that basis got the F. I. R. registered. The accused as well as Hem Lata were got medically examined and after completing the formalities and on the receipt of the report of the C F S. L. the accused was challaned.

( 6 ) EVEN though the prosecution in support of their case examined as many as 10 witnesses but for the purpose of disposing of she present appeal the evidence of P W. 1 Shiv Parshad Singh and that of the prosecutrix Hem Lata Public Witness 2 is material. The learned trial judge has given cogent reasons and relied upon number of authorities in believing the statement of Hem Lata who appears to be six years of age. As a rule of prudence, corroboration was sought from the testimony of Shiv Parshad Singh P W. 1. The net result of the evidence of both these witnesses do indicate that Hem Lata during her testimony remained unshaken and was clear in pointing out to the accused who bad taken her to the public toilets while she was playing with her friends, undressed himself and then attempted to rape her The learned trial judge further observed, with which I have no hesitation to agree, that there was no reason as to why Hem Lata would implicate the accused falsely. Shiv Parshad Singh happened to be by the side of the latrines and cought hold of the accused while he was without