JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - This is an appeal by Lalla Singh, who has been convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Shajahanpur Under Sections 366 and 376, I.P.C. Lalla Singh has been sentenced u/s 366, I.P.C. to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 200/- or further rigorous imprisonment for four months in default of fine. u/s 376, I.P.C. he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 300/-. The substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is that Ram Lal was a resident of village Bhatpura. His unmarried daughter, Kumari Tankora was about 18 years old in November 1951. One evening Ram Lal was away from his house Kumari Tankora had gone to (sic) her buffalo at a place close to her house. Lalla Singh Appellant and one Munshi came there, and forcibly took away the girl. When she attempted to raise an alarm, the two persons threatened to kill her with pistols which they carried. These two accused were later joined by (sic) other men Pheru, Ashraf and Subedar. These men took the girl to a field. When Ram Lal returned home he found that his daughter was missing. He started a search for her. Ram Lal went to Jamuna Prasad, who is Sarpanch of the village. Next morning information was received that Munshi accused had been seen entering the field. Jamuna Prasad collected some fifty persons of the village, and got the field surrounded. One constable, who happened to be in the locality, joined the raid. There was fire from a pistol from inside the field. These villagers succeeded in capturing four men, Lalla Singh, Munshi Pheru and Ashraf. Subedar escaped. Kumari Tankora was also recovered from the field. Two pistols were recovered from the possession of Lalla Singh and Munshi accused. The girl narrated hat she had been abducted, and that later she had been raped by Lalla Singh accused. She was medically examined. Four accused, Lalla Singh, Munshi, Pheru and Ashraf were prosecuted for abducting the girl. Lalla Singh was further charged u/s 376, I.P.C. 3. All the four accused pleaded not guilty. The girl narrated hat she had been abducted, and that later she had been raped by Lalla Singh accused. She was medically examined. Four accused, Lalla Singh, Munshi, Pheru and Ashraf were prosecuted for abducting the girl. Lalla Singh was further charged u/s 376, I.P.C. 3. All the four accused pleaded not guilty. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted Lalla Singh and Munshi u/s 366 I.P.C. Lalla Sinjh was further convicted u/s 376, I.P.C. Lalla Singh was sentenced for the two offences as detailed above Pheru and Ashraf were acquitted. This appeal has been filed by Lalla Singh alone. 4. Mr. B.C. Saxena, who filed the appeal, stated that Lalla Singh is dead, and that he was not pressing the appeal. Since the Appellant is dead, I have to consider the question whether the appeal has abated. 5. Section 431, Code of Criminal Procedure, deals with abatement of appeals. Section 431, Code of Criminal Procedure consists of two parts. The first part of Section 431 deals . with appeals Under Sections 411-A and 417, Code of Criminal Procedure The latter part of Section 431 deals with other appeals. According to the latter part of Section 431, Code of Criminal Procedure "every other appeal under this Chapter (except an appeal from a sentence of fine) shall finally abate on the death of the Appellant." The general rule is that an appeal by a convicted person abates upon his death. But there is an exception to the rule. An appeal from a sentence ol fine dose not so abate. It is not clear from Section 403 whether the appeal would abate where the sentence is imprisonment as well as fine. In a case where the sentence is fine, it is possible for the State to realise the fine from the estate of the accused even after his death. The heirs of the deceased are therefore interested in pursuing the matter even after the Appellants' death. Upon this principle, this appeal ought not to abate at least so far as the sentence of fine is concerned. It would be awkward if the appeal abates as regards the sentence of imprisonment, but dose not abate as regards the sentence of fine. In order to decide whether the sentence of fine should stand or not, it is necessary to enter into the propriety of the conviction itself. It would be awkward if the appeal abates as regards the sentence of imprisonment, but dose not abate as regards the sentence of fine. In order to decide whether the sentence of fine should stand or not, it is necessary to enter into the propriety of the conviction itself. The result is that this appeal has not abated in spite of Lalla Singh's death. 6. I examined the record with the assistance of Mr. Aqiq Hasan appearing for the State, The girl is said to have been abducted in the evening of 3-11-1951. Ram Lal lodged the first information report on 4-11-1951 at 2-30 p.m. The report was Under Sections 342, 363 and 376, I.P.C. Names of Lalla Singh and others were mentioned in the report as the culprits. 7. Kumari Tankora, P.W. 4, is the principal witness in the case. Her statement is supported by the evidence of Jamuna Prasad P.W. 2, and Shiv Sarup, P.W. 13, who took part in the girl's recovery.. These persons arrested a number of persons including Lalla Singh Appellant from the field. There is good corroboration of the girl's story as regards her abduction. Lalla Singh was rightly convicted u/s 366, I.P.C. 8. He has further been convicted u/s 376, I.P.C. Kumari Tankora is the sole witness on this charge. The learned Sessions Judge considered that there is some circumstantial evidence to support her statement. Firstly, the accused persons were arrested from the field with the girl. Secondly, the Chemical Examiner detected (sic) spots on the dhoti that the girl was wearing. Thirdly, the lady doctor noticed scratches on one arm of the girl. It may be that the girl was raped. But there is no circumstance to indicate that rape was committed by Lalla Singh accuse 1. As many as four persons were arrested from the field. It has, not been shown that, any injuries were found on Lalla Singh's Private parts. Nor were semen spots detected on his dhoti. There is thus no circumstance to fix the responsibility for rape upon Lalla Singh In the report Ex. P-1 it was stated that, all the culprits committed rape upon the girl. Now it is said that Lalla Singh alone committed rape. There is no independent corroboration of the girl's statement. Lalla Singh should not have been convicted for rape merely upon the girl's statement before the court. P-1 it was stated that, all the culprits committed rape upon the girl. Now it is said that Lalla Singh alone committed rape. There is no independent corroboration of the girl's statement. Lalla Singh should not have been convicted for rape merely upon the girl's statement before the court. So Lalla Singh's conviction u/s 376, I.P.C. will be set aside. 9. u/s 366, I.P.C. he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 200/-. Ordinarily, it is not necessary to pass sentences of fine in cases of abduction. But in the present case the substantive sentence of imprisonment passed upon Lalla Singh u/s 366, I.P.C., is light. So the sentence of fine for this offence may be allowed to stand. 10. The appeal is partly allowed. Lalla Singh's conviction and sentence u/s 366, I.P.C., will stand. He is acquitted of the charge u/s 376, I.P.C. If any fine has already been paid u/s 376, I.P.C. that fine shall be refunded.