Point of Law: Section 31(1) of Code states that, when a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, Court may, subject to provisions of Section 71 of IPC sentence him for such offences, to several punishments prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict; such punishments when consisting of imprisonment to commence one after expiration of other in such order as Court may direct, unless Court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently.

JUDGMENT :

There can never be more graver and heinous crime than the father committing rape on his own daughter. The protector then becomes the predator. The father is the fortress and refuge of his daughter. Charged of raping his own daughter under his refuge and fortress is worst than the gamekeeper becoming a poacher and treasury guard becoming a robber (State of Himachal Pradesh v. Asha Ram, AIR 2006 SC 381).

2. The prosecution case is that the accused, the father of the victim girl, repeatedly committed sexual assault and rape on her, on many days during the period from 01.06.2017 to 22.09.2017.

3. The victim girl was aged 11 years, when she became a prey to her father. She was studying in the fourth standard at that time. PW5 was her class teacher. She saw the child being very gloomy in the class. She reported the matter to PW4, the Headmistress of the school. On 21.09.2017, PW4 informed the matter to the Childline. On 22.09.2017, PW3, who was a member of the Childline, reached the school and talked to the victim girl. Then the girl revealed the acts of sexual assault committed on her by her father.

4. PW16 WCPO recorded Ext.P1 statement of the victim girl on 22.09.2017, in the presence of PW3. On the basis of that statement, PW21 Sub Inspector registered Ext.P11 F.I.R. PW23 Circle Inspector conducted the investigation of the case. After completing the investigation, he filed final report against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 376(2) (f), (i) and (n) and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 5(l), (m) and (n) read with Section 6 and also Section 7 read with 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the Act').

5. The trial court framed charge against the accused only under Sections 4, 6 and 10 of the Act and under Sections 376(2) (f), (i) and (n) of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty and he claimed to be tried.

6. The trial court found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), (i) and (n) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 6 and 10 of the Act and convicted him thereunder. The trial court sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for each of the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), (i) and (n) of the Indian Penal Code and directed that the sentences shall run consecutively. In view of the provision contained in Section 42 of the Act, no separate sentence was awarded for the offences under the Act.

7. Conviction entered against and the sentence imposed on him by the trial court are challenged in this appeal by the accused.

8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned public prosecutor. Perused the records.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly submitted that there are no legal grounds worthy enough to challenge the conviction entered against the accused. However, learned counsel has vehemently contended that the sentence imposed on the accused by the trial court is harsh and unreasonable. He invited the attention of this Court to the provisions contained in Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') and contended that the trial court should not have imposed consecutive sentences of imprisonment on the accused.

10. Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the sentence imposed on the accused by the trial court is only just and proper in the circumstances of the case, especially when the accused is the father of the victim girl.

11. Inspite of the fact that no serious challenge has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant to the conviction entered against the accused by the trial court, this Court has the obligation to consider the merits of the conviction (See Jeetu v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2013) 11 SCC 489).

Testimony of the Prosecutrix

12. When the victim