JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur camp at Gangapur City in Sess. case No. 37/1980, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 376/511, IPC to 31/2 years' R. I. with a fine of Rs. 300/- (in default, 3 month's R.I.). 2. Since the learned counsel for the accused-appellant did not challenge the conviction of the accused-appellant, it would be of no use to narrate the facts of the case. However, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the age of accused-appellant on the date of occurrence was in between 17-22 years as is stated by the doctor (PW2) and the accused appellant, himself has stated his age as 22 years in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and the Court estimated his age as 25 years. 3. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that a lenient view should be taken in the matter of reduction of the sentence keeping in view the afflux of time in between the date of occurrence and pendency of this appeal. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that looking to the gravity of the crime the accused appellant should not be given any benefit of reducing his sentence. 5. I have considered the point raised by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant. Though there is difference in the age of the accused-appellant as is evident from the above discussion, but looking to the age of the accused-appellant and the fact that the occurrence has taken place some eight year's back apart from taking into consideration of the fact that the accused-appellant has already remained in custody for about 14 months, it will not be just and proper to send the accused-appellant in jail to serve out the remaining sentence passed by the learned trial Court, for the above observations, I find support from the decision of this Court in Kalukhan v. State of Rajasthan, 1978 (3) R. Cr.C.P. 429 wherein for similar offence such as of Section 376/511 IPC, the accused was sentenced till the period of his custody. After eight years, I find no circumstances on the basis of which a severe view can be taken in the matter of sentence. 6. In the result, I allow this appeal in apart. After eight years, I find no circumstances on the basis of which a severe view can be taken in the matter of sentence. 6. In the result, I allow this appeal in apart. While maintaining the conviction under Section 376/511, IPC, the sentence passed by the learned trial Court against the accused-appellant is reduced to the period of his custody. Thus the sentence stands set off. The accused-appellant is already on bail, so he need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.Appeal Partly allowed. *******