JUDGMENT 1. 1. The appellant has filed this appeal Under section 374(ii) Criminal Procedure Code against the Judgment dated 6.9.1980 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra in Sessions case No. 36 of 1978, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has held the accused-appellant Chunia guilty of the offences Under Sections 452, 366 & 376 Indian Penal code and has sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years together with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence Under section 376 Indian Penal code; and to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence Under section 366 Indian Penal Code and to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days for the offence Under section 452 Indian Penal Code. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. It is alleged that the accused-appellant Chunia and his companions tress passed into the house of one Mangiya on 16.6.1978 at about 9.00 p.m. with the intention of kidnapping Mst. Phoosi aged 12 years. The above girl was abducted and the accused-appellant also committed rape on her. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. 3. I have heard M/s. S.R. Singhvi and Suresh Kumbhat, the learned counsel for the appellant; M/s. D.S. Rathore and K.L. Thakur, the learned Public Prosecutors for the State; and Mr. Suresh Dan for the Complainant and have gone through the record of the case. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the accused-appellant Chunia but made a very fervent prayer seeking indulgence of the Court to apprecidate the post offence developments relating to the instant case. The prosecutrix along with the accused filed an application before this Court, in which it was stated that the prosecutrix Mst. Phoosi has been residing as wife of the accused-appellant Chunia for the last 16 years and out of their wedlock, 7 childrens have begotten. The prosecutrix along with the accused filed an application before this Court, in which it was stated that the prosecutrix Mst. Phoosi has been residing as wife of the accused-appellant Chunia for the last 16 years and out of their wedlock, 7 childrens have begotten. It was further stated that two marriages were arranged in exchange and the prosecutrix was engaged to the accused-appellant. She further alleged that no such occurrence took place but on account of misunderstanding, the report was lodged. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has submitted that the accused has already remained in Jail for four and half months and if the punishment awarded to the accused by the learned Sessions Judge is maintained and carried out, it would create problems for the appellant and the prosecutrix who are now living as husband and wife with their 7 children. This fact can be taken into consideration while considering on the point of sentence. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Bishnudayal v. State of Bihar, 1981 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Karansingh v. State of Raj., 1990(2) RLR 78 . 6. The learned counsel appearing for the prosecutrix and the learned Public Prosecutor both have not disputed the correctness of the post offence developments. However, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the accused has committed a heinous offence and, therefore, the imprisonments awarded by the learned lower Court should not be reduced. 7. I have considered the rival contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 8. While deciding the quantum of punishments, the Court usually take the relevant factors into consideration and there are various theories of punishments. The deterrent punishment should not be awarded in such a case because the object of such category of punishment has got no utility in the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant and the prosecutrix both are living a peaceful life as husband and wife with their 7 children born out of their wedlock. 9. In Bishnudayal's case (supra), the accused was convicted for the offence Under Sections 366 & 376 Indian Penal Code. Before the Apex Court, it was pleaded on behalf of the appellant that he had married prosecutrix and some children were also born out of their wedlock. 9. In Bishnudayal's case (supra), the accused was convicted for the offence Under Sections 366 & 376 Indian Penal Code. Before the Apex Court, it was pleaded on behalf of the appellant that he had married prosecutrix and some children were also born out of their wedlock. The Apex Court was inclined to consider the post offence developments and gave time for verifying the above facts but unfortunately, the facts could not be verified. In this back ground, their lordships observed that in spite of ample time granted, neither the appellant nor anybody else has produced any material evidence in regard to these post offence developments. 10. The above observations made by their lordships of the Supreme Court were quoted in Karansingh's case (supra) and following the same, the appeal was allowed in part while maintaining the conviction but the sentence was reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone. 11. Taking into consideration the post offence developments on the point of quantum of sentence, I am inclined to agree with the prayer made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant. The prosecutrix and the accused both have established their home and they are enjoying their material life peacefully for the last 16 years and have got 7 children out of their wedlock. The one of the objects of criminal jurisprudence is to reform the accused and to rehabilitate him in the society. The above purpose stands adjudged by the post offence developments. 12. In the result, I allow this appeal in part, maintain the conviction of the accused-appellant but reduce his period of sentence to the period already undergone by him for the offences Under Sections 452, 366 & 376 Indian Penal Code. The accused-appellant Chunia is on bail, he need not surrender to his bail bonds.Let the record of this case be sent back to the learned lower Court forthwith.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******