JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 23.3.94 passed by the Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities cases), Kota, whereby he convicted the appellant for offence under Section 366/120-B Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's RI. 2. Briefly, the relevant facts are that on 16.10.92 the appellant alongwith co-accused Akbar, Yasin, Pappu & Sharafat entered into a criminal conspiracy and in furtherance thereof, he alongwith co-accused persons and one Mustafa abducted prosecutrix Kumari Rinesh Dubey aged about 16-17 years from Modi College Kota with intent that she may be compelled or forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, and took her in a tempo to Chhawni and Kotdi. Thereafter she was taken to Dadabari. Appellant Bhaiyan alongwith co-accused Pappu went on "Bullet" motor cycle and came back with the principal accused Akbar. Prosecutrix Rinesh was then offered a betel leaf. Thereafter she was taken near Dadadevi temple, where co-accused Akbar, Pappu and Bhaiyan joined them. It is alleged that accused threatened the prosecutrix by showing `Rampuri' knife that in case she refused to accompany them then her whole family shall be ruined. Appellant Bhaiyan alongwith co-accused Pappu took her on a motor cycle to his housp situated in Nayapura Kota, where she was again threatened and intimidated that her obscene photographs shall be published and she was forced to put on a `burka' and was then taken to the bus stand. The appellant and principal accused Akbar then took her into a bus to Jaipur, where they stayed in the house of Nanhey Khan, a relative of co-accused Pappu, from where they took her to Agra. In Agra they stayed in the house of co-accused Pappu. It is alleged that in the night, accused Akbar raped the prosecutrix on the roof of that house. Appellant Bhaiyan stayed there for 2-3 days. On 20.12.92 Akbar took the prosecutrix to Noratta, where the police apprehended accused Akbar and recovered the prosecutrix. 3. A case was registered on the report of Badri Prasad, the father of the prosecutrix at police station Dadabari Kota. After completion of investigation, challan was filed against the accused appellant and five other co-accused. On 20.12.92 Akbar took the prosecutrix to Noratta, where the police apprehended accused Akbar and recovered the prosecutrix. 3. A case was registered on the report of Badri Prasad, the father of the prosecutrix at police station Dadabari Kota. After completion of investigation, challan was filed against the accused appellant and five other co-accused. The learned Special Judge, after trial, by his impugned judgment convicted co-accused Akbar for offence under Section 376, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Co-accused Nanhey Khan was convicted for offence Under section 368, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to RI for ten years with a fine of Rs. 500/-. Appellant Sunil alias Bhaiyan and co-accused Pappu, Yasin and Sharafat were found guilty for offences under Section 366 read with S. 120-B Indian Penal Code and each one of them was sentenced to ten years' RI and fine of Rs. 500/-. Hence this appeal. 4. At the very outset, it may be mentioned here that the Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 5.7.95 has already partly allowed, the appeal filed by co-accused Akbar and while maintaining his conviction under Section 376, Indian Penal Code, has reduced his sentence of life imprisonment to 10 years RI and also partly allowed the appeals filed by co-accused Pappu, Yasin and Sharafat and while maintaining their conviction Under section 366 read with S. 120 Indian Penal Code reduced their sentence from 10 years' to 5 years' RI with a fine of Rs. 500/-. However, co-accused Nanhey was acquitted of the offence under Section 366 Indian Penal Code by the Division Bench. 5. Shri Vikram Singh the learned Amicus Curiae after going through the evidence recorded in this case has clearly stated that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the accused appellant for the offence Under section 366 r./w. s. 120-B, Indian Penal Code but has prayed that the quantum of sentence awarded to him is excessive and looking to the tender age of the appellant, the same be reduced. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has, however, reiterated that the appellant was one of the kingpins in the crime, who had initially abducted the prosecutrix and took her to various places and as such, the quantum of punishment is quite adequate. 7. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has, however, reiterated that the appellant was one of the kingpins in the crime, who had initially abducted the prosecutrix and took her to various places and as such, the quantum of punishment is quite adequate. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and peeped into the evidence recorded in this case. In our considered opinion, the learned trial Judge has correctly scanned, scrutinised and assessed the evidence and has not committed any illegality in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 366 read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. As regards the quantum of punishment, the appellant was a conductor of tempo, wherein prosecutrix Rinesh Dube used to go to college from her house. At the time of the alleged incident, appellants' age was about 19-20 years. The sentence of co- accused persons, named above, who were also convicted for offence Under section 366/120-B Indian Penal Code, has already been reduced by the Division Bench. Therefore, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice shall be secured, if sentence of the appellant is reduced from 10 years' RI to five years' RI and the fine of Rs. 500/- imposed on him is maintained. 8. In the result this appeal is partly allowed and conviction of the appellant for offence Under section 366 read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code is upheld but his sentence is reduced from ten years' RI to five years' RI and his fine of Rs. 500/- is maintained. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo RI for one month. The appellant, who is lodged in Central Jail, Kota be informed accordingly.Appeal partly allowed. *******