JUDGMENT 1. - The afore mentioned appeals have been directed against the judgment dated 25.4.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur, whereby he found appellant Saddique Mohd. and Smt. Varju guilty for the offences under sections 363, 366A, 368 & 344 I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further undergo 10 days simple imprisonment for the first offence, to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further undergo 10 days simple imprisonment on the second count and a composite sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further undergo 10 days simple imprisonment for the offences under section 368 & 344 I.P.C. The learned trial Judge also convicted appellant Saddique Mohd. for the offence under section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further under go 10 days simple imprisonment. He further directed that all the substantive sentences inflicted on the appellants shall run concurrently. 2. Succinctly stated the relevant facts are that in November, 1985, appellants came to the house of PW. 1 Heera Meena resident of village Sadkadi along with PW. 8 Smt. Noji. The appellants induced P.W. 3 Smt. Mangli, the wife of informant P.W. 1 Heera Meena, to accompany them to visit the fair at village Digri. The appellants also induced Smt. Mangli to take her minor daughter P.W. 2 Surji aged about 14-15 years. Thereupon Smt. Mangli along with Surji accompanied the appellants. However the appellants instead of going to Digri fair look them to Udaipur. It alleged that the appellants kidnapped and abducted Mst. Surji, knowing that it was likely that she would be forced or seduced to intercourse with another person. The appellants also wrongfully confined the prosecutrix in the house of P.W. Heera Lal at Udapur. Thereafter they took her to Jodhpur and Jaipur. It is alleged that during this period, appellant Saddique Mohd. committed rape with Surji number of times. The appellants also wanted to sell her. Thereafter the appellants brought the prosecutrix to Udaipur, where finding an opportunity, she narrated her woeful tale to P.W. 5 Amba La. Thereafter they took her to Jodhpur and Jaipur. It is alleged that during this period, appellant Saddique Mohd. committed rape with Surji number of times. The appellants also wanted to sell her. Thereafter the appellants brought the prosecutrix to Udaipur, where finding an opportunity, she narrated her woeful tale to P.W. 5 Amba La. It is further alleged that P.W. 1 Heera Meena, who was searching for his daughter, ultimately came to know that Surji was rescued by P.W. 5 Amba Lal. Thereafter he lodged a written report Ex.P. 1 on 10.12.85 at Police Station, Sarada, where P.W. 10 Rajcsh Soral registered the case. Surji was recovered on 13.12.85 vide recovery memo Ex.p. 2. The doctor after radiological examination opined that the age of the prosecutrix was about 14-15 years. The prosecutrix was also medically examined and her stained Ghaghra and vaginal smear were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. As per F.S.L. report, the ghaghra of the prosecutrix was found stained with human semen, while in her vaginal smear, no semen could be detected. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted a challan against the appellants in the court of M.J.M., Salumber, who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. The appellants in their plea recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, but asserted that since they have married each other the prosecution witnesses bore animosity against them. However, they did not adduce any evidence in their defence. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants for the offence under section 384 I.P.C., but convicted them for the offences under sections 363, 366A, 368 & 344 I.P.C. and also found guilty appellant Saddique Mohd. for the offence under section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced them in the manner detailed above. Hence these appeals. 3. I have heard Shri M.K. Garg the learned Advocate for the appellants and Smt. Chandra Lekha Parihar, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State at length and perused the relevant record. 4. At the very outset, Shri M.K. Garg has submitted that he docs not want to challenge the conviction of the appellants for the offences for which they have been found guilty by the learned trial Judge. 4. At the very outset, Shri M.K. Garg has submitted that he docs not want to challenge the conviction of the appellants for the offences for which they have been found guilty by the learned trial Judge. He has, however, submitted that the appellant Saddique has been continuously under detention since 28.4.90 and has thus served out more than four years' sentence. According to him the alleged occurrence took place in November, 1985, that the mother of the prosecutrix had accompanied the appellants to Udaipur, where she had come to know about the alleged abduction of her daughter, that she returned to her village and informed her husband P.W. 1 Heera, but still then he did not care to lodge any report. On the other hand he lodged the report as late as on 12.12.85 after about one month of the alleged occurrence. According to him in this case there exist mitigating circumstances and, therefore, the sentence imposed on appellant Saddique for the offence under section 376 I.P.C. be reduced to the sentence already under gone by him. As regards the appellant Smt. Varju, his contention is that she was under detention since 5.5.90 and released on bail on 6.12.92. Thus, she has also undergone sentence for a period of about 2 years & 71/2 months and that her sentence be also reduced to the period already undergone by her. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has severely opposed this and contended that the appellants had kidnapped and abducted a minor girl, who was also subjected to rape. In such circumstances the sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge is sufficient and should not be reduced. 6. I have carefully read the prosecution evidence recorded in this case. The learned trial Judge has correctly discussed, analysed and evaluated the prosecution evidence and rightly found the appellant Saddique guilty for the offence under section 376 I.P.C. and both the appellants for the offences under sections 363, 366A, 368 & 344 I.P.C. Appellant Saddique has already undergone the sentence imposed on him for the offences under sections 363, 366A, 368 & 344 I.P.C. As regards the offence of committing rape on the prosecutrix, there exist some mitigating circumstances in this case. Firstly P.W. 3 Mangli aged 45 years, the mother of the prosecutrix had accompanied the appellants along with her minor daughter P.W. Surji. Firstly P.W. 3 Mangli aged 45 years, the mother of the prosecutrix had accompanied the appellants along with her minor daughter P.W. Surji. She has deposed that the appellants had assured that they will go to visit the fair at village Dingri, but instead they took her to Udaipur. So on the very next day she had come to know that the appellants had deceived her and taken her to Udaipur. Mangli has further deposed that the appellants took her to the zoo at Udaipur and that thereafter they took away her daughter Surji and that thereafter she came back to her house and informed her husband. It is surprising that for a period of more than one month P.W. 1 Heera did not care to lodge any report against the appellants. It is only after the prosecutrix was rescued by P.W. 5 Amba Lal, that P.W. 1 Heera lodged the report at Police Station, Sarada as late as on 12.12.85. Apart from it, the prosecution did not examine the doctor, who had medically examined the prosecutrix. The doctor after examining the prosecutrix also did not give any definite opinion regarding the recent sexual intercourse. No semen was detected from the vaginal swab and vaginal smear. After radiological examination the doctor has opined that the age of the prosecutrix was between 14 to 15 years. Keeping in view all those mitigating circumstances, adequate and specific reasons exist to reduce the sentence of the appellant for the offence under section 376 I.P.C from 7 years to the period already undergone by him. 7. In the facts & circumstances of the case the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of the appellant Smt. Varju inflicted for the offence under section 363, 366A & 368 read with section 344 I.P.C. arc also reduced to the period already under gone by her. 8. In the result, these appeals are partly allowed. The conviction and sentences of the appellant Saddique Mohd. for the offences under sections 363, 366A, 368 read with 44 I.P.C. are maintained. His conviction for the offence under section 376 I.P.C. is also maintained, but his sentence is reduced from 7 years rigorous imprisonment to the period of sentence already under gone by him. However, his fine of Rs. 100/- is raised to Rs. for the offences under sections 363, 366A, 368 read with 44 I.P.C. are maintained. His conviction for the offence under section 376 I.P.C. is also maintained, but his sentence is reduced from 7 years rigorous imprisonment to the period of sentence already under gone by him. However, his fine of Rs. 100/- is raised to Rs. 500/- for this offence and in default of the payment of the fine, he shall further under go two months simple imprisonment. The conviction of appellant Smt. Varju @ Kamla for the offences under sections 363, 366A, 368 read with 344 I.P.C. is maintained, but the sentences passed against her for the said offences are reduced to the period already undergone by her. However, fines imposed on her by the learned trial Judge for the said offences are also maintained. Appellant Smt. Varju @ Kamla is allowed two months time from today for depositing the fine, failing which the learned trial Judge shall issue a non-bailable warrant for her arrest. *******