JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant Karan Singh has been convicted of the offence under section 376 by learned Sessions Judge Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. l05/78 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved Karan Singh has come in appeal. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 18.9.78 at about 8 or 9 a.m. Smt. Sunder Bai widow of Bhagwan Nai r/o village Chor Bardi had gone to her field on the outskirts of village Chor Bardi. She was plucking lady finger from her field when all of a suds en accused-appellant Karan Singh came there. The accused-appellant threw Smt Sunder Bai on the ground and pushed her skirt up and by removing his -dhoti' inserted his penis in her vagina against her will. She raised an alarm at which her nephew Mangilal came there. She received injuries on her person as also on her private parts. On arrival of Mangilal the accused-appellant ran away. A report of the incident was lodged on 19.9.78 at 7 p.m with police station Gandhar upon which due investigation was made and the accused was put up for trial. 3. Learned trial court relied upon the testimony of Smt. Sundar Bai as corroborated by the evidence of Mangilal and medical evidence furnished by Dr. Sharad Chand Vijaivargiya and arrived at a firm finding of fact that the accused- appellant had committed rape upon Smt. Sunder Bai. Consequently the accused- appellant was convicted and sentenced as above. 4. In the present appeal learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the propriety and legality of the conviction of the appellant and very frankly and fairly concedes that charge under section 376 IPC has been fully brought home against the accused-appellant. But he submits that the matter pertains to the year 1978. The accused-appellant was arrested on 21.9.78 and was released on bail on 28.2.79. Thereafter he surrendered before the learned Sessions Judge on 14.1.81 and was released on bail by this Court on 12.5.81. It is submitted that thus the accused ha undergone more than five months imprisonment. But he submits that the matter pertains to the year 1978. The accused-appellant was arrested on 21.9.78 and was released on bail on 28.2.79. Thereafter he surrendered before the learned Sessions Judge on 14.1.81 and was released on bail by this Court on 12.5.81. It is submitted that thus the accused ha undergone more than five months imprisonment. He submits that after the present appeal had been filed the parties arrived at a compromise and the deed of composition has been placed on record as would be evident by the order-sheet dated 9.7.84. He submits that this post-occurrence factor should be kept in view and the sentence of the accused-appellant should be reduced to that already undergone by him. It is submitted that the parties belong to the same village and are now living with amity. If the accused- appellant is made to serve out his sentence then the relation between the two would be spoiled and may lead to further acrimony. In support of his contention. he has placed reliance upon Bishnudayal v. The State of Bihar (AIR 1931 SC 39) . Vajir Khan v. The State of Rajasthan (1974 (4) R Cr. C 56) and (3) Govinda & another v. The State of Rajasthan (1979 (4) R.Cr.C. 234) . 5. Learned counsel for the complainant does not oppose the request but submits that some compensation may be awarded to the lady Smt. Sunder Bai. Learned P. P. initially opposed this request but after giving further thought to the matter very frankly concedes that it would not be desirable to send the accused back to jail after such a long period particularly when the matter has been compromised between the parties. He also submits that the lady may be paid adequate compensation. 6. Learned counsel for appellant is agreeable to payment of such compensation as may be awarded by this Court keeping in view the status of the parties. 7. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions. Post- occurrence development can be taken into account in fixing the quantum of punishment particularly when our criminal jurisprudence is reorienting itself towards rehabilitation of the accused rather than to punitive incarceration. This approach is discernible by pronouncement of their Lordships in Bishnudayal's case (supra). 7. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions. Post- occurrence development can be taken into account in fixing the quantum of punishment particularly when our criminal jurisprudence is reorienting itself towards rehabilitation of the accused rather than to punitive incarceration. This approach is discernible by pronouncement of their Lordships in Bishnudayal's case (supra). In that case the accused had been convicted for offence under sections 366 and 376 I.P C. before their Lordships of the Supreme Court it was stated that the appellant had married the prosecutrix and some children were born from the liaison. Counsel however wanted time to verify this information. Their Lordships reserved orders in this case and adjourned announcement of the judgment but somehow appellant did not appear nor any material or evidence was produced with regard to the aforesaid post-occurrence development. In this background their Lordships observed as under : "In spite of the ample time granted neither the appellant nor anybody else has produced any material or evidence in regard to these post-occurrence development which if established could be taken into account in fixing the quantum of punishment." In Govinda's case,(supra) Murari and Ramcharan had been convicted for offence under section 376 I P.C. along wish Govinda and another Conviction of appellants Govinda and Ramesh was gel aside in the case since the charges were not sustainable on the evidence against them but go far as Ramcharan and Murari were concerned their convictions for offence under section 376 I.P.C. were maintained but since each one of them had undergone in custodial detention of nearly eight months their sentence was reduced to that already undergone. Hon'ble Justice M.L.Shrimal as he then was observed as under : "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 beat in life would he 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. 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. In this very case compensation was awarded to the prosecutrix. In my opinion this case is very much similar on facts to the present case. In the present case the occurrence took place on 18 9.78. The accused was arrested on 21.9.78. He remained in detention till 28.2.79. Upon his conviction surrendered on 14.4.81 and was released on bail on 12.5.81. Thus he has been incarcerated for almost more than four months. I agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that no useful purpose would be served by sending him back to jail after a long lapse of almost nine years. 8. The other rulings cited before me do not have much bearing on the present case and therefore I need not discuss them. 9. In my opinion this is a fit case where the appeal should be partly allowed and the sentence of the accused-appellant should be reduced to.he period for which he has remained in custody during the course of investigation enquiry and trial and after conviction. However the appellant should pay suitable compensation to Smt. Sunder Bai. In my opinion a sum of Rs. 4,000/- would meet the ends of justice. 10. In the result this appeal partly succeeds. The conviction of the appellant for offence u/s., 376 I.P.C. is maintained but his sentence is reduced to the period for which he has already remained in custody. However the appellant shall pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/- which shall be paid to Smt. Sunder Bai as compensation. The amount may be paid within a period of four months. The appellant is on bail and need not surrender. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.Appeal partly allowed. *******