JUDGMENT Appellant Ghanshyam has been convicted under section 376 Indian Penal Code for committing rape on Kewrabai (PW 1) aged about 18 years and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to a fine of Rs. 100/-. The prosecution case was that on 10.11.1986 Kewrabai (PW 1) came back to her house after taking bath in the village tank. She was changing her clothes in her courtyard. The accused entered into her house, took her in the verandah and committed sexual intercourse with her. The husband of the prosecutrix saw the accused making an exit from his house. Kewarabai (PW 1) went to the Police Station and lodged the report Ex. P-1 on the same date. The trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record held that the accused had sexual intercourse with Kewarabai (PW 1) without her consent. In this appeal it is argued that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not satisfactory and it does not prove the guilt of the accused. The evidence on record has been scrutinised by this Court. Kewrabai (PW 1) has deposed that she was changing her clothes at about 9 a.m. in her courtyard. The accused entered into her house, lifted her and took her to the verandah. He had sexual intercourse with her. She has also stated that she raised cries and abused the accused. Ishwari (PW 2) has stated that he returned from the tailoring shop and heard the abuses which his wife was giving to the accused. He saw the accused going out from his house. Barsan (PW 3) is a neighbour of the prosecutrix. He has also deposed that he saw the accused near house of the prosecutrix. He was told by her that she has been ravished by the accused. She complained to Kotwarin of the village and then she went to the Police Station to lodge her report. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that prosecutrix in her deposition has stated that she does not know the name of the accused. However, identity of the accused is established on the basis of testimony of her husband and her neighbour Barsan (PW 3). There is no indication that the accused was having any affairs with this lady. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the plea that he was invited by her to have sexual relations with her. However, identity of the accused is established on the basis of testimony of her husband and her neighbour Barsan (PW 3). There is no indication that the accused was having any affairs with this lady. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the plea that he was invited by her to have sexual relations with her. The trial Court has rightly held the accused guilty for the offence punishable under section 376 IPC. Now coming to the question of sentence, it has to be borne in mind that this appeal has been pending for more than ten years. The Supreme Court has recently held in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar (1998) 7 SCC 507 that right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the stage of appeal also and where this right is infringed the appellate Court can reduce the sentence if it is just and equitable in the circumstances of the case. In view of above legal position, the sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. With this modification in the sentence, this appeal is dismissed.