JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals filed by accused Ganga Ram are directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, on October 17, 1973, for an offence under section 377 Indian Penal Code One of the appeals is from Jail, while the other one is through a counsel. Both are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. The facts of this case are that accused Ganga Ram Meghwal of Barmer used to repair shoes of complainant Chaturbhuj aged 17 years, who was a Higher Secondary student in Barmer. On November 12, 1972 or near about, he told Chaturbhuj that his shoes were lying repaired in his house and asked Chaturbhuj to come along with him. When Chaturbhuj went with him in the room, the accused bolted the door from inside and committed carnal intercourse with him against the order of nature. He continued to indulge in this activity by advancing threats to the victim often and on. He even extracted cash from the boy and also made him steal ornaments from his house. On one occasion, he was seen by Hari Ram who used to live with Ganga Ram in the same room. He also carried the boy to some Guru who gave a potion so that the victim always remained under the hold of the accused. The whole thing was discovered when one gold ornament was found missing by the father of Chaturbhuj and On enquiries, the boy told that he had given the ornament to Ganga Ram. The matter was reported to the police and it was there that the boy related all what Ganga Ram had been doing to him. 3. Upon medical examination, it was found that Ganga Ram and Chaturbhuj were suffering from syphilis and that the boy was habituated to anal intercourse and there was candy lomatous growth ground about the anus, a sign of syphilis. The medical officer Harak Raj Mathur PW 1 deposed that Ganga Ram could be the person who committed sodomy on Chaturbhuj. 4. Ganga Ram after investigation was prosecuted under section 377 IPC. He took up the plea that he was falsely implicated because Chaturbhuj did not make any payment for the repair of shoes and had sold him the gold ornament for Rs. 125/-. He could not make the payment of the price and they fell out. 4. Ganga Ram after investigation was prosecuted under section 377 IPC. He took up the plea that he was falsely implicated because Chaturbhuj did not make any payment for the repair of shoes and had sold him the gold ornament for Rs. 125/-. He could not make the payment of the price and they fell out. It was on account of this enmity that Chaturbhuj deposed against him. 5. The learned trial Judge rejected the plea of the accused and held that the statement of Chaturbhuj was corroborated by the statement of Hari Ram PW 3 and Medical Officer Dr. Mathur PW 1. He convicted the accused under section 377 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous for five years and to a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default whereof, to rigorous imprisonment for three months. Hence this appeal. 6. I have heard arguments and perused the record. 7. The learned counsel for- the appellant submitted that the story put forward by the prosecution is extremely doubtful. Chaturbhuj is a boy of 17 years and if the act was committed against his wishes by the accused he should have long ago disclosed the matter to his father or to the police. No recovery of the alleged gold ornament was affected from Ganga Ram. The evidence of Hari Ram should have been discarded because Hari Ram was refusing to pay Ganga Ram for allowing him to share the apartment with him. I have considered over all these aspects of the matter but I do not find any force in any of the arguments so advanced. The findings of the learned trial Judge do not call for any interference and are hereby upheld. 8. The learned counsel lastly pleaded that Ganga Ram was arrested on July 10, 1973 and the sentence should be reduced to what he has undergone because Chaturbhuj was also a willing party to the commission of the offence. Though am not inclined to agree to this request but some reduction in the sentence is called for. 9. I, therefore, accept this appeal and while maintaining the conviction, reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from 5 years to 4 years. The fine and sentence in default are maintained. *******