JUDGMENT S.K. SINGH, J.:- The present appeal which has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13th December, 1993 passed by Shri Arun Prabhat Sinha, IInd Assistant Sessions Judge, Supaul in Sessions Case No. 103 of 1992, by which appellants 1 to 8 have been convicted under Section 366 of the Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Code' and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Appellants 5 to 8 were further convicted under Section 376 (2) of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Appellant No. 4 Kapleshwar Das had been convicted under Section 376 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The appeal was heard on merit and by order and judgment of this Court dated 16 July, 1997, in view of evidence adduced before the trial Court, sentence under Section 366 of the Penal Code awarded to the appellants Ramdhan Tatma, Kari Das, Ramcharan Das, kapleshwar Das, Ramcharan Das, kapleshwar Das, Ramphal Tatma, Dorik Tatma Sajjan Tatma and Mohan Tatma was reduced to five years. Similarly sentence under Section 376 (2) awarded to appellants Ramphal Tatma, Dorik Tatma and Sajjan Tatma was reduced to a period of seven years though the conviction was maintained, however, sentence awarded to the appellant kapleshwar Das under Section 376 of the Penal Code was maintained. Taking the age of Mohan Tatma into consideration his conviction under Section 366 of the Penal Code was maintained but sentence was reduced to a period of three years. Criminal appeal was dismissed with the aforesaid modification. 3. Appellants Ram Charan Das, Ramdhan Tatma alias Ramdhan Das, kari Das and Mohan Tatma preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court of India and a Bench of the Supreme Court by its order dated 15 February, 1999 after setting aside the judgment and order of this Court, remitted the case back to the High Court to dispose of the matter in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 4. 4. In view of order at the Supreme Court as Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1994 was restored to its original file, noticed was issued to the appellants as well as the State of Bihar on 26-3-1999 fixing 23 April, 1999 as the date of hearing in the matter. In the meantime, lower Court records were also called for. 5. On several dates subsequent thereto as the lower Court records has not been received, express reminders were issued by this Court. On 2-7-1999 when the matter was taken up one Birendra Narayan Sharma, learned Counsel who appeared on behalf of the appellants earlier stated that he would be filing Vakalatnama on behalf of appellants 1, 2 and 3. However, a fresh notice was issued on Appellant No.4 who was lodged in Bhagalpur Jail. As notices were duly served on the other appellants no fresh notices was required to be sent. In view of submission of the parties, the matter was adjourned on 14-12-2000. On 22-1-2001 date of hearing was extended by two weeks awaiting service report or Appellant Nos. 4 and 7. The matter was further adjourned on the request of the parties on several other dates. It was adjourned on 28-9-2001 and 10-10-2001 as no one appeared on behalf of the appellants. 6. Today when the matter was taken up the appeal was argued at length of Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that as for now as the appellants have already undergone sentences ~ awarded to them, as such, he will like to press the appeal only on question of sentice. 7. The prosecution case in short is that on 25-3-1992 the informant who is a married lady had gone to collect firewood. Where appellants Sajjan Tatma, Dorik Tatma, Mohan Tatma and Ramphal Tatma at the point of lathi and dagger Kidnapped the informant and took her to the house of Dorik Tatma where Baccha Tatma, (acquitted by the trial Court), Kari Das, Ramdhan Tatma, Ramcharan Das and Bhiko Tatma (acquitted by the trial Court) were present. She was asked to marry appellant Kapleshwar Das who will take her to Bombay. The informant refused as she was married and pleaded with them to allow her go to her husband. They also thereatened the informant with direcon sequences if she did not marry kapleshwar Das. She was asked to marry appellant Kapleshwar Das who will take her to Bombay. The informant refused as she was married and pleaded with them to allow her go to her husband. They also thereatened the informant with direcon sequences if she did not marry kapleshwar Das. In the night, appellants Sajjan Tatma, Dorik Tatma, Mohan Tatma and Ramphal Tatma are alleged to have committed rape on her. They are alleged to have committed rape on the informant consequently for three days. The further case of the prosecution is that on 29-3-1992 she was made to board train at Lalitgram Station with Kapleshwar Das who brought her to Supaul and from Supaul she was taken to Gauripur via Saharsa, Madhepura and Singheswar. She is alleged to have been kept there for one month where appellant Kapleshwar Das is said to have committed rape on her and subsequently she was rescued from there by her husband, in laws and other village people. The further story of the prosecution is that while the informant was being boarded in a train at Lalitgram Station, the appellant Sajjan Tatma is alleged to have snatched her Chokar from her neck worth Rs. 800. 8. Charges under Section 366, 376 and 376 (2) of the Code were framed against accused persons which they pleaded not guilty and were tried. 9. P.W. 2 the informant has said in her evidence that when she had gone to collect fire-woods, she was kidnaped by Sajjan Das, Dorik Das, Ramphal Das and Mohan Das and was taken to the house of Dorik Das where Ramdhan Das, Kari Das, Baccha Das, Bhikho Das and Ramchandra Das were from before. According to her she was kept there for three days and Sajjan Das, Mohan Das, Ramphal Das and Dorik Das committed rape with her. Dorik Das was also compelling her to marry Kapleshwar Das. She has supported the prosecution story. Other prosecution witnesses have also been quite and consistent and stood the rest of credibility. 10. P.W. 4, father in law of the informant has stated that at the time of kidnapping he was away in a Bhoj and after return when he came to know about the traceleseness of his daughter-in-law, he searched for her in the village and on the next date he asked Lakhna Das to search the informant at her Naihar. 10. P.W. 4, father in law of the informant has stated that at the time of kidnapping he was away in a Bhoj and after return when he came to know about the traceleseness of his daughter-in-law, he searched for her in the village and on the next date he asked Lakhna Das to search the informant at her Naihar. Search for the informant was made and finally when he went to Pratapganj he came to know that Kapleshwar Das has taken away his daughter-in-law to Gouripur. Then he alongwith other went to Gouripur and recovered the informant. After recovery of the informant, she narrated the whole story regarding rape committed by the appellants including Kapleshwar Das from whose custody she was rescued. 11. Though P.W. 1 Lakhan Das, husband of Akbari Devi, has been declared hostile stating therein that he knew nothing about her, however, I.O. of the case has stated that P.W. 1 had clearly told him about the kidnapping of his wife and her recovery. Other PWs have also supported the prosecution case. 12. P.W. 3 Janak Das has also supported the occurrence and has stated that he also accompanied father-in-law and the husband who had gone to recover the victim lady. He is consistent in his statement and stood the test of cross-examination. P.Ws. 5 and 6 are witnesses who have been tendered. 13. Defence has examined four witnesses. D.W. 1 has stated that Dorik has got his house in front of his house. He has stated that the informant Akbari Devi is a lady of questionable character. According to him, she has got illicit relation with one Janak. He has said about the Panchaiti in which Akbari Devi is found guilty. However, in his cross-examination, he has accepted that he personally does not know Akbari Devi nor he has seen her. D.W. 2 has also said that his house is adjacent to the house of Dorik Das. However, he has stated that two years' back he did not see any girl brought to the house of Dhorik Das. D.W. 3 has stated that Jank Das Got this case instituted against the accused persons on a false pretext. D.W. 2 has also said that his house is adjacent to the house of Dorik Das. However, he has stated that two years' back he did not see any girl brought to the house of Dhorik Das. D.W. 3 has stated that Jank Das Got this case instituted against the accused persons on a false pretext. Though learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has tried to take some benefit from the deposition of the husband of the informant who has not only stated that no occurrence was committed rather he has also stated that when they were going to depose in the Court, his wife had been kidnapped for which a case has been filed. He has also pointed out my attention towards the fact that F.I.R. itself has been lodged more than a month after the recovery of the lady. 14. In the facts of the case, it has very vehemently been argued by Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned Counsel representing the appellants that doubt is writ large in view of the fact that there has been a delay in lodging of the F.I.R. He has further contended that as far as kidnapping of the wife is concerned, husband becomes most relevant witness and he has been declared hostile as he has stated that he does not know anything about the occurrence and as such, a prayer has been made to grant benefit of doubt to the appellants. Certain contradictions have also been pointed out in the evidence of father and father-in-law of the victim lady regarding her recovery. Some statements have been brought on record to snow that the victim lady was also a lady of loose character to show that she has gone on free will and there was no coercion of kidnapping. Though some contradictions have been brought on record but in view of evidence of P.W. 2 informant and the victim lady naming these appellants as kidnapper, the statement of P.W.4, the father-in-law of the informant to the effect that after he came back from the Bhoj, he came to know about the kidnaping of his daughter-in-law. After hecting search when he went to Pratapganj he came to know that Kapileshwar Das had taken away his daughter-in-law to Gouripur. The informant had been recovered from Gouripur and had stated the story of rape by the appellants including Kapleshwar Das from whose custody she had been rescued. After hecting search when he went to Pratapganj he came to know that Kapileshwar Das had taken away his daughter-in-law to Gouripur. The informant had been recovered from Gouripur and had stated the story of rape by the appellants including Kapleshwar Das from whose custody she had been rescued. The evidence of these two witnesses are suffice to establish the crime that has been committed. 15. Taking into consideration the overwhelming evidence which has come on record this Court is inclined to maintain the conviction as it does not find any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court. However, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, the period the appellants have suffered and the fact that the occurrence is dated 25 March, 1992 and nearly nine years have elapsed this Court is of the considered view that the sentence be reduced to a period already undergone. 16. In the result, the present appeal fails and the sentence under Section 376 of the Penal Code awarded to appellants Ramdhan Tatma, Kari Das, Ram Charan Das, Kapleshwar Das, Ramphal Tatma, Dorik Tatma and Sajjan Tatma is maintained. Similarly conviction under Section 376 of the Penal Code awarded to the appellants Ramphal Tatma, Dorik Tatma and Sajjan Tatma is also maintained. The conviction awarded to the appellant Kapleshwar Das under Section 376 of the Penal Code is also maintained. As far as convictions as stated above are concerned, are reduced to the period undergone. As the appellants have already served the sentences they are directed to be released forthwith if not already released or wanted in connection with other cases. 17. The criminal appeal is dismissed with the modification aforesaid.