JUDGMENT 1. - All these three appeals one filed by Govinda and Ramesh being S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 516 of 1972, the other filed by Murari being S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 1972 and the third filed by Ramcharan being S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 570 of 1972 arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur dated August 2, 1972 and, therefore, they are beingdisposed of by a common judgment. 2. Accused Girraj, Ram Charan, Murari, Govinda, Ramesh and Mahesh were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. Accused Girraj was charged under Sections 366, 368 and 376 I. P. C. for abducting and committing rape upon PW 1 Mst. Jwala and the rest of the accused namely, Ramcharan, Murari, Govinda and Ramesh were charged under Section 376 I. P. C. for committing rape upon Mst. Jwala and accused Mahesh was charged under Section 366/109 I. P. C. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses in support of their case, out of whom PW 1 Mst. Jwala is the prosecutrix. PW 7 Dr. Anant Narain is the person who clinically examined Mst. Jwala on December 5, 1971. The injury report is Ex. P/9. First information report is Ex. P/1. PW 9 Balwant Singh is the Investigating Officer in this case. The rest of the witnesses were examined to prove the adbuction of Mst. Jwala by Girraj. 3. The learned Sessions Jugde acquitted Girraj and Mahesh of all charges framed against them and the State has not come up in appeal against their acquittal. As such I am not concerned with their case. Rest of the four accused have been convicted by the trial court under Section 376 I. P. C. and each one of them has been sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. 4. The convicted accused have challenged the verdict of the trial court by these appeals. 5. The controversy in this case has been reduced down to a narrow compass, as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellants. Mr. N. L. Tibrewal and Mr. L. N. Sharma, have frankly admitted that there are no sufficient grounds to challenge the conviction of Ram Charan and Murari accused-appellants on merits. 5. The controversy in this case has been reduced down to a narrow compass, as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellants. Mr. N. L. Tibrewal and Mr. L. N. Sharma, have frankly admitted that there are no sufficient grounds to challenge the conviction of Ram Charan and Murari accused-appellants on merits. However, I have gone through the relevant portion of the evidence and am satisfied that by cogent and reliable evidence the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt to the accused-appellants Ram Charan and Murari. 6. As regards accused-appellants Govinda and Ramesh, learned counsel urged that PW 1 Mst. Jwala in her statement Ex. D/2 recorded on December 6, 1971 did not state that the two accused namely, Govinda and Ramesh committed rape upon her. No doubt she made an incriminating statement against both the accused in the trial court. She was confronted with the previous statement and was given an opportunity to explain contradiction in both the statements, but the witness instead of explaining the contradiction had the audacity to state that she did incriminate both the accused in her previous statement, but the learned court did not record it. Keeping in view the fact that the conviction of these accused has been based on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix and there is contradiction between the two statements, I find considerable merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that it would not be safe to maintain their conviction on such a meagre evidence. Therefore, the conviction of accused-appellants Govinda and Ramesh under Section 376 I. P. C are set aside. 7. Now remains the question of sentence regarding the two accused-appellants namely, Ramcharan and Murari. The prosecutrix on the date of the occurrence was 19 years of age. Both the accussed were nearly 21 years of age on the date of occurrence. The occurrence is of the year 1971. We are in the year 1978. A period of nearly seven years has elapsed in between. Both these accused were arrested in the month of January, 1972. The trial court did not release them on bail and after their conviction both of them were released by this Court by order dated August 30, 1972 and the order dated September 1, 1972. Thus each of them has remained in custody for a period of nearly 8 months. Both these accused were arrested in the month of January, 1972. The trial court did not release them on bail and after their conviction both of them were released by this Court by order dated August 30, 1972 and the order dated September 1, 1972. Thus each of them has remained in custody for a period of nearly 8 months. The criminal proceedings against the appellants have gone on for about seven years. To send the appellants back to jail to serve out the remaining term of sentence after a period of six years of their release on bail when they have turned a new leaf in life, would be a bit harsh to them in my opinion. It is unlikely to have any reformative effect upon them. Harassment of a criminal trial for more than seven years and the expense which they must have incurred, in my opinion, can legitimately be taken into account when considering the question of sentence imposed by this Court at this point of time. I think it would be just and proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period of sentence already undergone by them. But in lieu of the reduction of substantive sentence, I consider it to be in the interest of justice to impose a fine of Rs. 1000/- on Murari and a fine of Rs. 200/- on Ramcharan, who is said to be the servant of Ramesh (acquitted accused). Out of the fine, if realised, an amount of Rs. 500/- shall be paid to Mst. Jwala PW 1. In default of the payment of fine accused appellant Murari shall undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of six months and the other accused-appellant Ramcharan shall undergo imprisonment for a period of three months. Two months time is allowed to the appellants to deposit the fine in the trial court, failing which the trial court shall get them arrested and send them to jail to undergo the period of imprisonment awarded by this Court in case of non-payment of fine. 8. In the result the appeal No. 516 of 1972, filed by accused-appellants Govinda and Ramesh is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to them by the trial Court are set aside. They are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds. 8. In the result the appeal No. 516 of 1972, filed by accused-appellants Govinda and Ramesh is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to them by the trial Court are set aside. They are on bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds. Appeal No. 569 of 1972 filed by Murari and appeal No. 570 of 1972 filed by Ram Charan are allowed in part as indicated above.Order accordingly. *******