JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.3.81 passed by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Jalore convicting the first appellant Dhoor Singh of offence under Section 376 and sentenced him to 7 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment, to further undergo, one months R.I. The second, third and fourth appellants namely: Doonger Singh, Manohar Singh and Jabar Singh have been convicted of offence under Section 366 I.PC and each of them sentenced to 4 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment, to further undergo 1 years R.I. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed during the trial is that Mst. Sampat was forcibly taken away while she was sleeping at her house by the accused persons and thereafter she was married to the first appellant Dhoor Singh. It is said that Mst. Sampat was engaged with the accused Dhoor Singh. However, this was not accepted later on by the family members of Ku. Sampat. The other accused Jabbar Singh is said to be cousin brother of Mst. Sampat. His wife also insisted that Mst. Sampat should be married with her brother Dhoor Singh. However, she could not succeeded in her persuasion. This laid to kidnapping of Mst. Sampat. The accused appellants were charged for the aforesaid offence. 3. The trial court acquitted one of the accused Surta and convicted all the accused persons of the aforesaid offence. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. I have read the statement of PW18 Mst. Sampat. She has stated that the accused Dhoor Singh, Doonger Singh, Manohar Singh, and Jabbar Singh entered in the house while she was sleeping. The accused Doonger Singh put his hand on her mouth and took away. She also stated that Jabber Singh was also there. She was taken in Jeep. She was taken to the filed and married with the accused Dhoor Singh. She also stated that the accused indulged in sexual intercourse with her, without her consent. There has been some controversy with respect to her age but that is not relevant in the instant case as it is proved by the statement of Mst. Sampat that Dhoor Singh indulged sexual intercourse with her, without consent. She also stated that the accused indulged in sexual intercourse with her, without her consent. There has been some controversy with respect to her age but that is not relevant in the instant case as it is proved by the statement of Mst. Sampat that Dhoor Singh indulged sexual intercourse with her, without consent. Thus, the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is proved against the appellant Dhoor Singh and for offence under section 366 I.P.C. against other appellants. 5. The accused first appellant Dhoor Singh has undergone sentence of about 2 years and 1 month. The other accused persons also have undergone some part of their sentences. The alleged incident is of year 1979. Considering all the fact and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice would met if the sentence of all the accused appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offence is confirmed with the modification on the point of sentence that the sentence of each of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. With this modification on the point of sentence, the appeal stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******