JUDGMENT 1. . - By this Jail Appeal, the accused-appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 5.3.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur, by which he has convicted the accused-appellant under Sections 376/511 and 342, IPC and sentenced him to undergo 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof, to further undergo 2 months' simple imprisonment on the first count and 3 months' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months' simple imprisonment on the second count. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the accused-appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the judgment and t to evidence on record. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused-appellant attempted to commit rape on a girl named Sabana, aged about 13 years, who used to earn the means of livelihood by begging at the Railway Stations. On the parchabayan (Ex. P.1) of the prosecutrix, the police registered a case against the appellant for offence under Sections 376,342 and 323, IPC. During investigation, Shri Hari Singh ASI, Investigating Officer (PW 6) prepared the site plan (Ex. P.2)got the prosecutrix medically examined and arrested the accused- appellant vide arrest memo (Ex. P.10) and after completion of necessary formalities, submitted challan in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 4. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused-appellant under Sections 342, 376 and 323, IPC, which were read over and explained to the accused, to which the accused denied and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses to prove its case. The accused did not examine any witness in his defence. 5. Before considering the merits of the case, I would like to observe that the accused-appellant was arrested on 21.6.1997 vide arrest memo Ex. P.10 and since than he is in custody. The learned Trial Court has awarded sentepce of 3 years' R.I. and 3 months' S.I. while convicting the accused- appellant under Sections 376/511 and 342, IPA.. The learned Trial Court further ordered that in default of payment of fine of Rs. 500/- on each count, the accused will further undergo 2 months and 3 months simple imprisonment, respectively. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The learned Trial Court further ordered that in default of payment of fine of Rs. 500/- on each count, the accused will further undergo 2 months and 3 months simple imprisonment, respectively. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Thus, it appears that the accused-appellant who has been in custody since 21.8.1997 has till date already completed the period of sentence awarded to him. 6. On a careful perusal of the evidence on record, I find that the learned Trial Court while considering the statement of the prosecution witnesses, in particular, the statement of PW 1 Mst. Sabana, PW 4 Dr. Abdul Ajij Khan, PW 6 Hari Singh, ASI and PW 8 Ram Kumar has found the accused guilty for offence under Sections 342 and 376/511, IPC and, therefore, the impugned judgment having based on proper appreciation of evidence on record does not call for any interference and deserves to be maintained. 7. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur vide judgment and order dated 5.3.1998 is maintained. However, since the accused-appellant has already served out the sentence awarded to him, he be released forthwith, if not already released.Appeal dismissed. *******