JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal from jail by the accused appellant, Shivji who has been convicted under section 376, IPC and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to suffer a further rigorous imprisonment for two months, by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bundi. 2. The facts of the case, in brief are that on 3-10-1975, at about noon, Mst. Bhuli had gone to a 'nala' for making her mare to drink water. When she was returning home she was prevented by the accused who caught hold of her hand and dragged her inside her field containing Juwar crop. It was contended that the accused threatened her with a knife saying that she will meet dire consequences in case she did not surrender herself for sexual intercourse. It was further contended that the accused committed sexual intercourse with Mst. Bhuli, she raised cries which attracted her brother P.W.1 Babu and her cousin P.W8 Ram Niwas, Mst. Bhuli was taken home by these witnesses where she narrated the incident to her mother. The father of the girl was not present in the house. He returned next day. After his return, a Panchayat of the entire village community was convened, and a report was drafted and sent to the police. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. It was contended on behalf of the accused-appellant that Mst. Bhuli is a married grown-up girl and that sexual intercourse, if any, was committed, it was with her consent. It was also contended that the medical report does not support the prosecution story of rape. It was also contended that Mst. Bhuli did not suffer any injury either on her body or on her private parts. It was, therefore, contended that she was a consenting party to the incident. 5. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant has also contended that apart from the merits of the case the accused has been in judicial custody since 4-10-1975, and that after counting the period of remission he has been in custody for about two years and that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of three years-rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the period already suffered by the accused-appellant. It was also contended that the accused-appellant is a young man and no useful purpose would be served by converting him into a hardened criminal. 6. Dr. Tiwari, learned Advocate General, did not oppose the reduction in sentence from three years rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by the accused-appellant. 7. The respective contentions of the learned counsel for the accused appellant and learned Advocate General have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused. 8. From the evidence on record, it is clearly established that the accused-appellant did commit rape on Mst. Bhuli. The statement of Mst. Bhuli duly supported by the statements of Babu, Ramniwas and Mst. Panni clearly go to show that the accused-appellant committed sexual intercourse with Mst. Bhuli against her wishes. In view of these circumstances, the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 376, IPC cannot be assailed. 9. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant has strenuously urged that the quantum of sentence may be reduced from three years' rigorous imprisonment to the imprisonment already undergone by the accused-appellant. The learned Advocate General has not opposed this request of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant. Accused Shivji had been in judicial custody since 4.10.1975. 10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to hold that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence of the accused-appellant from three years rigorous imprisonment to the imprisonment already suffered by the accused-appellant. The sentence of fine of Rs. 200/- is set aside. 11. For the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by the accused-appellant is partly allowed. His conviction under Section 376, IPC is hereby sustained. His sentence is, however, reduced from three years rigorous imprisonment to the sentence already undergone by him. The accused-appellant is in judicial custody. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. *******