JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.8.1992, passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases cum Additional Sessions Judge, Kota, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.8.1989, at about 3.00 p.m., one Balu had cooked-up the meals and after preparing the meals he went to the market for taking liquor. When he returned with the liquor, accused Kanhaiya Lal came there alongwith his wife and one Ramesh. They started taking liquor. When they were taking liquor, accused Kanhaiya Lal went towards the quarters and forcibly took Durgawati in a vacant quarter and committed rape upon her. Durgawati raised alarm. In the meantime Ramesh reached there and rescued Durgawati. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined ten witnesses. The accused examined three witnesses in his defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under section 376 I.P.C. as stated above. it is against this judgment dated 6.8.92, passed by the trial court, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for the offence under section 376 IPC that the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offence under section 376 IPC. His only submission is that the accused appellant was sixteen years of age at the time of the incident and offence was committed under the fit of passion and the incident took place long back, and therefore, the sentence awarded to the accused- appellant should be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Reliance in support of the contention has been placed on: Raju v. the State of Karnataka, AIR 1994 SC 222 . The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for taking a lenient view in the matter of sentence is made out and the appellant does not deserve any leniency. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for taking a lenient view in the matter of sentence is made out and the appellant does not deserve any leniency. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. In the case of : Raju v. the State of Karnataka ( AIR 1994 SC 222 ) , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "Considering the very young age of the accused persons and considering the circumstances that there was every likelihood of loss of sense due to taking of liquor and the accused committed the offence of rape and, also, considering the fact that the incident has taken place long back and during the course of proceedings upto this Court both of them have suffered disrepute, we think that the ends of justice would be met if both the accused persons are awarded lesser sentence." The accused appellant, at the time of commitment of the offence, was aged about sixteen seventeen years. The incident took place under the fit of passion. He has, also, suffered the mental agony and disrepute. He is in jail. To some extent his career has spoiled. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I think it proper to reduce the substantive sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment to the period of detention already undergone by the accused-appellant, which, on calculation, comes to four years ten months and twenty four days. 6. In the result, the appeal, filed by the accused appellant, is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused-appellant for the offence under section 376 IPC. passed by the learned trial court, is maintained but, however, the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-appellant by the trial court is reduced from ten years' rigorous imprisonment to the period of detention already undergone by him as also detention during investigation, enquiry and trial. The sentence of fine is maintained. The accused-appellant is allowed three months' time to deposit the amount of fine. The appellant is in jail and he may be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case.Appeal partly allowed. *******