JUDGMENT 1. - Shyam Sunder has filed this appeal against his conviction under Section 363 I.P.C. He has been sentenced for this offence to rigorous imprisonment for 31/2 years, with a fine of Rs. 500/-and further rigorous imprisonment for six months in default of payment of fine, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City. He has been further convicted and Sentenced under Section 379 I P.C. to rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution story is that Shyam Sunder abducted Kumari Manjit Kaur, and accused Israil and Saraf helped him. Guru Bachan Singh, the father of the Girl finding that the girl is not in the upper storey of the house, rushed to the police station and lodged a report at about 2-30 A.M. on November 1, 1972. Before the information was lodged in the police, the father of the girl alongwith some other persons got the information that some body of the Meena Hostel were seem taking the girl and, therefore, he first rushed to Sawai Madhopur, and recovered the girl at the railway station, but the accused boared a running train and escaped with the ornaments of the girl. 3. After the usual investigation, the challan was filed by the police and the trial court acquitted the other two accused giving the benefit of doubt, but convicted Shyam Sunder as mentioned above. 4. This appeal was considered and decided by the judgment of this Court on 31st October, 1980. However, at that time the accused was unrepresented. The accused petitioner filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the re-hearing of the appeal. 5. Mr. Bapna has appeared for the accused-appellant and the accused-appellant is also present in person. At the conclusion of the arguments both the learned counsel for the accused and the Public Prosecutor submitted that after this incident happened on November 1, 1972, both the accused Shyam Sunder and the girl Kumari Manjit Kaur have married independently in their community. The Girl is reported to have gone to Chandigarh after marriage with her husband and the boy is living at Gangapur city with his married wife. 6. Both of them pointed out that even earlier I have given a finding that the boy did not molest the girl nor did he act indecently in any manner so far as the chastity of the girl is concerned. 7. 6. Both of them pointed out that even earlier I have given a finding that the boy did not molest the girl nor did he act indecently in any manner so far as the chastity of the girl is concerned. 7. Even in my earlier judgment, I have held that there was no allegation that the boy was of bad character and that he kidnapped or abducted any girl or girls with a motive to merry her or to commit sexual intercourse. I have then reduced the sentence from 31/2 years to one year under section 363, I.P.C. and maintained the sentence of one year under section 379 I.P.C. 8. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, both Mr. Bapna and the public Prosecutor submitted that it is not necessary to consider them again and elaborate judgment of this court given on October 31, 1980 need not repeated. I am therefore, of the view that though the conviction of the accused under section 363 IP-C. and 379 IPC for abducting Kumari Manjit Kaur and taking the ornaments suffers from no infirmity and deserves to be confirmed, but the question of sentence requires a fresh consideration in the light of new developments and circumstances pointed out by Mr. Bapna and not disputed by Mr. Mathur. 9. Since both Shyam Sunder accused and the girl Kumari Manjit Kaur have married and are leading their separate married lives at two different places in two different States, it would meet the ends of justice if while confirming the conviction, the accused who has already undergone sentence of 18 days is not sent to jail now. At the time of commission of the offence, the accused was of 19-20 years of age and. therefore the question of granting benefit of probation of offenders Act or benefit of section 360 Cr. P.C. would have also been considered and required consideration. However, since almost a decade has passed from the date of the occurrence, it is hardly necessary now to keep she accused on probation mere so in view of the above facts and circumstances. 10. The result is that sentence of the accused both under sections 363 and 379 I.P.C. is reduced to that already undergone. The sentence of fine imposed by the lower court is also set aside. 11. The appeal is therefore partially accepted. 10. The result is that sentence of the accused both under sections 363 and 379 I.P.C. is reduced to that already undergone. The sentence of fine imposed by the lower court is also set aside. 11. The appeal is therefore partially accepted. The accused is on bail and need not surrender.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******