JUDGMENT 1. - Since both these appeals arise out of the same order, they are being decided by this common order. 2. Heard. persuade the record of the trial court. 3. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 8-10-1994 passed by the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Paragraph,, whereby he convicted the appellant for the offence under section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. 4. Briefly stated the relevant facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are that on 7.8.93 at about 5 p.m., prosecutrix P.W.1 Smt. Jamna Aged 21 years was grazing her cattle folk in the weed of Khudawas near the bank of the river. Appellant came to the river for taking bath and seeing the prosecutrix alone caught hold of her and felled her down. It is alleged that the appellant put a towel around her neck and when the prosecutrix protested, he inflicted injuries to her and thereafter committed rape with her. When the prosecutrix raised an alarm, P.W.4 Kumar Sakuri aged 13 years as also the husband of the prosecutrix came there, thereupon the appellant ran away. The prosecutrix lodged an oral report about the incident on 9.8.93 at about 10 a.m., at police station Salamgarh, whereupon a formal F.I.R. Ex. P. 16 was drawn. The accused was arrested on 15.8.1993. The doctor, who examined the prosecutrix did not find any external injury on her private parts and opined that she was accustomed to sexual act, After radiological examination, her age was determined to be about 29 years After investigation, the police submitted the challan in the curt of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paragraph, who committed the case for trial to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Paragraph. The appellant was charged for the offence under section 376 I.P.C. to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses. The appellant denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and asserted that he has been falsely implicated due to animosity. However, he did not examine any witness in his defence. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge relying on the testimony of the prosecutrix found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him in the manner detailed above. However, he did not examine any witness in his defence. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge relying on the testimony of the prosecutrix found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him in the manner detailed above. Hence this appeal. 5. I have heard Shri S.K.Mathur the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri K.L. Thakur the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. Shri Mathur has rightly not challenged the conviction of the appellant. His only contention is that the appellant is under detention since 15.8.93 and he has already undergone a sentence of one year, four months and twenty one days. According to him there are mitigating circumstances in this case and that the sentence already undergone by him will suffice to meet the ends of justice. 7. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor has contended that the sentence awarded to the appellant is not excessive keeping in view the gravity of the offence. However, he has submitted that the appellant as well as the prosecutrix are Adiwasi Mecnas. 8. In this case the F.I.R. was lodged with an inordinate delay, which has not been well explained. P.W.1 Smt. Jamna in her cross-examination has specifically admitted that the appellant did not inflict any injury to her, on the other hand, she had fallen down and as such she received injuries on her back. She has also stated that if the appellant gives the compensation amount to her she will withdraw her case. The prosecutrix is aged about 28 years while the age of the appellant is about 26 years They are Adiwasi Mecnas. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of this case and the mitigating circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the sentence already undergone by the appellant along with the fine of Rs. 2,500/- will suffice to meet the ends of justice in this case. 9. In the result, these appeals are partly allowed and while maintaining the convicting of the appellant under section 376 I.P.C., his substantive sentence is reduced from seven years rigorous imprisonment to the period already under gone by him. However, the fine imposed on the appellant is raised from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2,500/- ( Rs. two thousand five hundred only), indefault of payment of fine, he will further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. However, the fine imposed on the appellant is raised from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2,500/- ( Rs. two thousand five hundred only), indefault of payment of fine, he will further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. In case the fine is realised, the said amount of Rs. 2,500/- be given to prosecutrix Smt. Jamna side of Daulat Ram by caste Meena, resident of Lakhania, police station, Salamgarh. The Jail authorities be informed accordingly.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******