JUDGMENT B.P. Singh, J. - Prem Singh has preferred this appeal against his conviction which was recorded by Sri L. Dungrakoti, Sessions Judge, Almora, on 5-5-1978 in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 1975 under Section 366, I.P.C.. and Section 323, I.P.C. 2. Smt. Hira Devi, PW 1 widow of Gopal Singh, was living with her mother-in-law Smt. Kidi Devi in village Ida Patti Vichla Daura. She was granted family pension as her late husband was a Government Servant. A few months prior to the occurrence of this case Smt. Hira Devi, PW 1, had accompanied the accused, Prem Singh, to Rani Khet and had received Rs. 2,400/- by way of arrears of pension. Hira Devi PW 1 and accused Prem Singh had brought this amount to Smt. Kidi Devi who had handed over the said amount to the accused Prem Singh for safe custody. Accused Prem Singh is the real brother of Smt. Kidi Devi PW 3, Smt. Hira Devi PW I was issueless. 3. About a month prior to the occurrence of this case, Hira Devi was sleeping in the cattle shed. Accused Prem Singh had come there and on hearing some noise Hira Devi had raised alarm. On this Prem Singh had bolted away, after threatening Hira Devi. 4. On 25-12-1970 Hira Devi PW 1 and Mangi alias Mangla Devi PW 2 had gone to fetch grass in outskirts of village Ida. At about 3.00- 4.00 P.M. accused suddenly came there and pounced upon Smt. Mangla Devi PW 2. Mangla Devi PW 2 fell down on the ground and was given Gandasa blows from the blunt side. For a moment she had become unconscious but regained senses almost at once. The accused then pounced upon Hira Devi PW 1, pushed her down and sat upon her body. He cut the cord of the golden necklace of Mira Devi and also took away golden rings. Thereafter the accused got up and catching hold of Hira Devi by the hands, took her to his village. 5. Mangla Devi PW 2 saw the accused and Hira Devi going away from that place. She then came to the village and went to the Sabhapati Kunwar Singh PW 4 and narrated the entire occurrence. On the way she met Smt. Kidi PW 3 and had also narrated the entire incident to her. 5. Mangla Devi PW 2 saw the accused and Hira Devi going away from that place. She then came to the village and went to the Sabhapati Kunwar Singh PW 4 and narrated the entire occurrence. On the way she met Smt. Kidi PW 3 and had also narrated the entire incident to her. Mangla Devi PW 2, after getting first aid from P. H. C. Jalali, lodged a report Ex. Ka-1 with the Sabhapati. Smt. Kidi Devi, in the meantime, had also lodged a report Ex. Ka-2 with the Sabhapati of the incident. Sabhapati Kunwar Singh PW 4 attempted to search Hira Devi but did not succeed. Consequently, he lodged a report Ex. Ka-3 on the next day at 5 A.M. with the Patwari, Madho Singh PW 5, who was posted as Patwari Patti Vichla Daura. The reports Ex. Ka-1 and Ex. Ka-2 were also handed over by Kunwar Singh PW 4 to Madho Singh PW 5. A case under Sections 366/395/342 and 325, I.P.C., was registered against the accused. Smt. Mangla Devi was sent to Civil Hospital, Rani Khet for medical examination. 6. Madho Singh PW 5 took over the investigation. On the same day be went to the village of accused Prem Singh and recovered Smt. Hira Devi from one of the rooms of the house of Prem Singh. Kunwar Singh PW 4 was also present at that time. Hira Devi was handed over in the custody of Smt. Kidi Devi vide memo Ex. Ka 6. A gun and 13 cartridges and a licence. (Ex. 1, 2 and 3) were also recovered from the said room of the accused. After completing investigation a charge sheet Ex. Ka-10 was submitted against the accused. 7. At the trial the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charges under Sections 366/ 368/392 and 397, I.P.C., were framed against the accused. 8. In all the prosecution examined five witnesses, namely, Hira Devi PW 1, Mangla Devi PW 2, Kidi Devi PW 3, Kunwar Singh PW 4 and Patwari Madho Singh PW 5 in the case. 9. The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence. Charges under Sections 366/ 368/392 and 397, I.P.C., were framed against the accused. 8. In all the prosecution examined five witnesses, namely, Hira Devi PW 1, Mangla Devi PW 2, Kidi Devi PW 3, Kunwar Singh PW 4 and Patwari Madho Singh PW 5 in the case. 9. The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence. Learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of PWs and held that the accused was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 366/323, I.P.C. Consequently, the accused was sentenced to 7 years' R. I. for the offence under Section 366, I.P.C., and 6 months' R. I. for the offence under Section 323, I.P.C. The accused, Prem Singh, was acquitted with the charges under Sections 368 and 392, I.P.C. 10. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the trial Court Prem Singh has come in appeal. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 12. The genuineness of the injury report Fx. Ka -11 was not disputed from the side of the accused. This injury report shows that Dr. K. C. Malhotra had examined mt. Mangla Devi PW 2 on 28-12-1970 in Rani Khet Civil Hospital at 3.00 P.M. and had found the following injury upon her person : 1 Lacerated wound 1" x ?" x skin deep on the back of left forearm, lower ? covered by blood clot. 2. An oblique bruise 4" x 1" on the right side of the back, middle ?. 3. A diffuse bruise 5" x 3" on the left iliac crest, 15" below the left exilla. According to Dr. K. C. Malhotra these iniuries were simple and could have been caused on 25-12-1970. 13. The version of Smt. Mangla Devi has already been detailed in the statement of the case and the same need not be repeated here. Smt. Hira Devi PW 1 has corroborated the statement of Mangla Devi PW 2 and has stated that her mother-in-law had handed over Rs. 2,400/- to Prem Singh for safe custody. She has also stated that a month after the receipt of the arrears of pension, the accused Prem Singh had come to her in the night and had threatened with dire consequences when alarm was raised by her. She has also stated that Prem Singh had dragged her to his house and kept for a night. She has also stated that a month after the receipt of the arrears of pension, the accused Prem Singh had come to her in the night and had threatened with dire consequences when alarm was raised by her. She has also stated that Prem Singh had dragged her to his house and kept for a night. She has also stated that on the next morning she was recovered by the village Patwari from the said house of Prem Singh. Snit. Kidi Devi, who is the real sister of Prem Singh, has corroborated the statement of Hira Devi regarding the arrears of pension. Kunwar Singh and Madho Singh have stated that Hira Devi was recovered from the room of Prem Singh's house on 26-12-1970. I have gone through the evidence of these witnesses. All these witnesses have been fairly consistent in their evidence throughout their cross-examination. There are no material contradictions or variations in their evidence from which it could be inferred that their evidence was unreliable Smt. Kidi Devi PW 3 is the real sister of Prem Singh while Hira Devi is the daughter-in-law of Smt. Kidi Devi. Both these ladies are close relations of Prem Singh. They were not expected to depose falsely against him unless Prom Singh had acted in the manner alleged, Kunwar Singh PW 4, Smt. Mangla Devi PW 2 and Madho Singh PW 5 are independent and impartial witnesses. There is no evidence on the record to show that they were inimical to the accused or they were interested with Hira Devi PW 1 in any manner. There were not supposed to perjure themselves without any rhyme or reason. The evidence of Hira Devi PW I and Smt. Mangla Devi PW 2 regarding iniuries finds corroboration in the injury report Ex. Ka-11. 14. Under the circumstances I come to the conclusion that learned Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the accused has committed an offence under Sections 366 and 373, I.P.C. The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Sections 366 and 323, I.P.C., is confirmed. Coming to the sentence I may point out it is not the case of the prosecution that after taking Hira Devi to his house Prem Singh has in any manner misbehaved with Hira Devi. No attempt was made by him to molest or indulge in sexual activity with Hira Devi. Coming to the sentence I may point out it is not the case of the prosecution that after taking Hira Devi to his house Prem Singh has in any manner misbehaved with Hira Devi. No attempt was made by him to molest or indulge in sexual activity with Hira Devi. He had tried to snatch away golden ornaments of Hira Devi and perhaps he had some motive to do so. He was aged about 60 years when his statement was recorded on 1st May, 1978. Now he is about 73 years. The occurrence took place in the year 1970. Now Prem Singh will be punished for an offence which was committed by him about 21 years back. The appellant has already been in jail for four months. Considering the above mentioned circumstances I am of the view that a sentence of the period already undergone and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- will serve the ends of justice. 15. The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 366 and 323, I.P.C., is maintained but his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and is awarded a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 16. The fine shall be paid within two months and in case of default in payment of fine, the appellant shall go three months' R. I.