JUDGMENT 1. - This is a jail appeal filed by Narain Singh and Nihang Singh against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar dated 25-9-76 by which the appellant was convicted under sections 366 and 354 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4 months on the first count and on the second to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year only. The sentences of rigorous imprisonment on both the counts were, however, ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case against the appellant was as follows:- 3. Mst. Anchi daughter of Gopiram Nayak used to live with her mother and brother in village Jodkiya. In the month of March, 1976 she was a minor girl of about 12 or 13 years of age. Her mother and brother were labourers, who used to work at Jodikiya-minor as employees of Hetram Bishnoi. In the night of 4th March, 1976 Mst. Anchi was sleeping alone with her mother and sister in the court yard of their thatched house. The appellant came there lifted up Mst. Anchi and kidnapped her to Jaitsar Railway Station. The minor girl began to weep, but she was scolded by the appellant, and so out of fear she kept quite. At Railway Station Jaitsar the appellant offered Rupees 5/- to her and asked her permission to have sexual intercourse with her. The girl again began to weep when the appellant manhandled her. At that time the train arrived at the Railway Station.The appellant and the girl boarded the train which was going to Ganganagar, In the way at Railway Station, Karanpur, Birbalram Constable on seeing the appellant and the girl sitting together in a compartment suspected some foul play and made necessary enquiries from the appellant and the girl as to their whereabouts. The appellant told the constable that the girl was his sons wife. The constable disbelieved the appellant as the appellant was wearing a Punjabi dress and the girl had Marwari garments on her body. Birbalram then repeatedly questioned the girl as to her name and address. Mst. Anchi then disclosed to Birbalram that she had been kidnapped by the appellant from her house and that the appellant offered Rupees 5/-to her for obtaining her permission to have sexual intercourse with her. Birbalram then repeatedly questioned the girl as to her name and address. Mst. Anchi then disclosed to Birbalram that she had been kidnapped by the appellant from her house and that the appellant offered Rupees 5/-to her for obtaining her permission to have sexual intercourse with her. The constable then took the appellant and the girl to police station Ganganagar. Tekchand recorded the statement of the girl and sent it to police station Vijay Nagar for registration of a Criminal case under Section 363, 376 read with sec. 511 I. P. C. The incharge police station Vijay Nagar, registered the case on the basis of the statement of the girl and started investigation. Mst. Anchi was sent for medical examination as to her age. She was medically examined by Dr. S. S. Baxi, who estimated her age to be between 14 and 15 years on the day of medical examination. Her elbow and wrists joints were x-rayed by Dr. S. S. Bhargava, who also found her age to be 14 to 15 years on the basis of Radiological examination, After collecting other necessary evidence in the case, the police filed a charge-sheet against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, under sections 366, 363 and 354 I. P. C. The learned Judicial Magistrate, upon finding a prima facie case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the appellant to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, who transferred the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar for trial. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge tried the appellant for the offences under Section 363, 366, 354 and 376/511 I. P. C. but convicted and sentenced him, as stated above. 5. This appeal was admitted by this Court on 20-12-76 and a notice of the date, time and place at which the appeal shall be heard was given to the appellant through jail authority and to the public prosecutor. The appellant appeared before me on 21-9-77. As the appellant is a poor man, he expressed his inability to engage a lawyer. However, Mr. B. Advani offered himself to represent the appellant under the legal aid programme without demanding any fee and so Mr. B. Advani was appointed as Amicus curiae to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellant. 6. I have carefully gone through the record and heard the appellant in person and Mr. However, Mr. B. Advani offered himself to represent the appellant under the legal aid programme without demanding any fee and so Mr. B. Advani was appointed as Amicus curiae to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellant. 6. I have carefully gone through the record and heard the appellant in person and Mr. B. Advani representing him. I heard Mr. K. C. Bhandari, public prosecutor also. Firstly, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that no case is made out upon evidence led by the prosecution against the appellant under sections 366 and 354, I. P. C. and that the trial Judge committed an error in convicting him for the aforesaid offences. The above contention has no force. Upon careful review of the entire evidence, I am satisfied that the statement of Mst. Anchi that she was kidnapped by the appellant from her thatched house, wherein she was sleeping in the night along with her mother and her sister, does not suffer from any infirmity. Mst. Anchi was a minor girl of about 14 or 15 years at the time when she was taken by the appellant out of the keeping of her lawful guardianship, i. e. her mother, as is fully proved by the evidence of Dr. S. S. Buxi, who medically examined her as to age and who definitely estimated her age to be between 14 and 15 years on the basis of physical examination as well as ossification test conducted by Dr. S. S. Bhargava. Her evidence regarding kidnapping finds corroboration from the testimony of Birbalram, who saw her sitting with the appellant in a compartment of train at railway station, Karanpur. Birbal Ram suspected some foul play on seeing the girl in the company of the appellant. So he made necessary enquiries from the appellant as to her whereabouts. The appellant told Birbal Ram that Mst. Anchi was his sons wife, but Birbal Ram did not believe all that had been said to him by the appellant. He made enquiries from the girl also as to her name and whereabouts. The appellant resented the questions put by Birbal Ram to the girl and asked Birbal Ram to question him alone about the girl. Thereupon, Birbal Ram replied that he was a Constable and he could make necessary enquiries from the girl also. Upon being questioned by Birbal Ram, Mst. The appellant resented the questions put by Birbal Ram to the girl and asked Birbal Ram to question him alone about the girl. Thereupon, Birbal Ram replied that he was a Constable and he could make necessary enquiries from the girl also. Upon being questioned by Birbal Ram, Mst. Anchi disclosed to him that she had been kidnapped by the appellant while she was sleeping in her house and the appellant offered Rs. 5/- to her at the bus-stand, Jetpur, for obtaining permission to have sexual intercourse with her. Birbal Ram further stated in his deposition that the appellant tried to get down from the compartment upon disclosure of the true facts by the girl but he was prevented from making good his escape from the compartment. Birbal Ram then brought the appellant and the girl to the police station, Ganganagar, and produced them before the Officer Incharge. From the evidence of Mst. Anchi and Birbal Ram it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was responsible for kidnapping the girl out of the keeping of her lawful guardian, i. e., her mother. It is further proved by the evidence of Mst. Anchi that the appellant kidnapped her in order that she may be seduced to illicit intercourse. In fact, the appellant offered a sum of Rs. Rs. 5/-, to Mst. Anchi at bus-stand, Jetpur and asked her to permit him to have sexual intercourse with her but the girl wept and refused. 7. The appellant denied to have kidnapped the girl but he could not afford any reasonable explanation why he was found sitting with the girl in a compartment of the train at Karanpur railway station and why Mst. Anchi deposed against him before the police on being questioned by Birbal Ram. He merely pleaded that he was implicated in this case at the instance of Het Ram, who was highly annoyed with him on account of his son having refused to pay off the debt due to the latter, i. e. Het Ram. The appellants plea does not carry conviction to a prudent mind. Birbal Ram and Anchi had no enmity with or personal grudge against the appellant prior to the occurrence. There is nothing on the record to show that these witnesses have falsely entangled the appellant in this case out of some ulterior motive. Mst. The appellants plea does not carry conviction to a prudent mind. Birbal Ram and Anchi had no enmity with or personal grudge against the appellant prior to the occurrence. There is nothing on the record to show that these witnesses have falsely entangled the appellant in this case out of some ulterior motive. Mst. Anchi and Birbal Ram have been cross-examined by the learned counsel for the appellant but nothing has been elicited from their cross-examination which may destroy the value of their evidence or may adversely affect the credibility thereof. Hence, I am of the view that the trial court rightly convicted the appellant under S. 366 and S. 354, I. P. C. on the basis of reliable evidence of Mst. Anchi and Birbal Ram. 8. As regards the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court on both the counts. I may observe that it is a bit severe having regard to the age of the appellant. There is no dispute that the appellant was about 70 or 72 years of age in the year 1979. The trial Judge while recording his statement on 21st January, 1976 estimated his age at 70 or 72 years. In the arrest memo also the police recorded his age to be about 70 years. The appellant put in his appearance before me also. He is an old man of more than 70 years of age. There is no previous conviction for similar offences to his discredit. He has already suffered rigorous imprisonment for about one year. Besides, he had undergone detention during the investigation, inquiry and trial of this case for a period of about 86 days, as is evident from an endorsement made by the trial court in his warrant of commitment to jail. Taking all these facts into consideration, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if his convictions under sections 366 and 354, I. P. C. are maintained and the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to a term already undergone by him and the sentence of fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months is reduced to a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 9. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months is reduced to a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 9. I, therefore, partly accept the appeal filed by Narayan Singh alias Nihang Singh appellant and while maintaining the appellants conviction under sections 366 and 354, I. P. C. reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him to a term already undergone by him. I further reduce the sentence of fine of Rs. 500/-, imposed on him by the trial court under S. 366, I. P. C. to a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to sufferer rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appellant is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if not required in connection with some other case. Two months time is given to the appellant at the oral request of his learned counsel Mr. B. Advani for depositing the fine of Rs. 200/-, in the trial court, failing which necessary action shall be taken by the trial Judge against the appellant in accordance with law.Appeal partly accepted. *******