The main legal point established is the consideration of victims' testimony and the father's dilemma in reporting the incidents in determining the conviction and sentencing.

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.

Accused-appellant, Deva Raval has preferred present appeal through jail to assail judgment dated 24.01.2017 rendered by the Court of Additional Session Judge No. 2, Beawar (for short 'the trial court') in Session Case No. 23/2016 (88/2012, 41/2012 and 63/2012) arising out of FIR No. 51/2012 registered at Police Station Tadgarh. The trial court held the appellant guilty of offences under Sections 376, 354 and 342 IPC. Having convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences, the trial court by separate order of even date sentenced the appellant as under:

Name of Appellant	Section	Sentence
Deva Raval	376 IPC	Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's additional rigorous imprisonment.
	354 IPC	Two years rigorous' imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' additional rigorous imprisonment.
	342 IPC	One year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's additional rigorous imprisonment.

2. The sentences awarded on three counts were ordered to run concurrently. It was also ordered by the trial court that in case amount of fine of Rs. 50,000/- is realised, the same should be paid to the victim as compensation.

3. Criminal proceedings in the present were set at motion on the basis of written complaint (Exhibit P-3) instituted by Bhola Raval (P.w.3), brother of the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Beawar for offence under Section 376, 342 and 323 IPC. Said criminal complaint was sent to the Police Station Tadgarh under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 and the said police station on 03.07.2012 at 6.40 P.M. registered case against the appellant for offence under Section 376, 342 and 323 IPC. In the criminal complaint, Bhola Raval (P.W.3) stated that he is father of two minor daughters aged 14 years and 10 years. Names of two daughters are being withheld to protect their identity and henceforth, they shall be referred as prosecutrix victim no. 1 and victim no. 2. It was further stated that accused is the younger brother of the complainant and having fallen in the bad company, he spoil-ed his habits. The complainant further averred that he and his wife Badami Devi (P.W.4) used to leave the house for doing labour work and in their absence, accused Deva being uncle of the victims, by giving threat, used to commit rape with the elder daughter, i.e. victim No. 1. It was further stated that elder daughter of the complainant, i.e. victim No. 1 due to fear and threat had not complained against her uncle. It was further averred in the complaint that on 15.06.2012, younger daughter of the complainant, i.e. victim no. 2 was forcibly confined in a room by the accused and he had committed rape with her. When complainant returned, younger daughter, i.e. victim no. 2 by weeping informed that her clothes have been spoil-ed by the accused. On enquiry by the complainant, his wife, younger daughter, i.e. victim no. 2 informed that uncle (kaka) (chacha) had forcibly inserted his penis in the vagina. At that stage, elder daughter, victim no. 1 also wept and informed that accused (uncle) Deva from last so many days by showing knife was committing rape with her and due to fear, she could not disclose anything. Complainant called his younger brother Deva and confronted him with the facts, upon which he attempted to liquidate the complainant. The complainant further stated that he had gone to the police station, but the police had not registered report of rape and had only arrested the accused Deva for offence under Section 151 Cr.P.C., 1973 Hence, written complaint is being filed.

4. From the above, it is clear that the appellant sexually