JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal by accused Subhash Chand has been preferred against the judgment dated 1.9.98 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri District, Jhunjhnu by which he has convicted the accused appellant under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof, to further undergo three months rigorous impressment on the first count and to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. A girl named Sunita aged about 15 years was kidnapped by the accused appellant and her brother Shri Nathu Ram lodged a report Ex.R1 at Police Station, Khetri on 21.02.97, Stating therein that her sister Sunita aged about 15 years has been kidnapped by his neighbour Subhash S/o Shri Shiv Lal Chamar. Despite search she could not be traced. Upon this report Ex.R1 police registered a case vide FIR No. 29/97 and proceeded to investigate the case. During investigation police arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.R3 seized his under-wear vide memo Ex.R4 and recovered Kumari Sunita on 6.3.97 from Khetri Nagar vide memo Ex.R5., collected X-ray report of Sunita, which is Ex.R9, got the accused and Sunita medically examined, the reports of which are Ex.P 10 and Ex.R13, respectively and also recorded the statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.RC. 3. After completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the accused for offence under Section 366 A, 363 and 376 IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Khetri who in turn, committed the case to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri for trial. 4. The learned trial Judge on the basis material on record framed charges against the accused appellant under Sections 366-A, 363 and 376 IPC. The charges were read over to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. During investigation, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited some documents. Thereafter, the trial court examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.RC. to personally enable him to explain the circumstances appearing against him. The accused also examined D.W. 1 Jagdish Prashad in his defence. 6. 5. During investigation, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited some documents. Thereafter, the trial court examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.RC. to personally enable him to explain the circumstances appearing against him. The accused also examined D.W. 1 Jagdish Prashad in his defence. 6. After completion of trial, hearing arguments of both the sides and considering the material on record, the trial court found the accused appellant guilty of the offences charged and consequently, convicted and sentenced him for offence under Sections 363 and 366 A IPC. However, the learned trial court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 376 I.P.C. and hence this appeal. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned public prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record. 8. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not seriously challenged the conviction and has mainly confined his arguments on the question of sentence, but I am of the view that to appreciate the findings of guilt under Section 363 and 366 A IPC against the accused arrived at by the trial court, it is necessary to examine the evidence and material on record. 9. To establish the charge under Section 363 I.P.C. It is necessary that the girl enticed from the lawful guardianship without the consent of guardian is below the age of 18 years. While recording a finding of guilt under Section 363 IPC the learned trial Court has relied upon the documents namely; the transfer certificate Ex.D.4A, application for admission Ex.D.SA and scholar register Ex.D.6A which show that the date of birth of Sunita is 19th March, 1980. PW.1 Nathu father of Sunita has stated the age of Sunita 14-15 years. PW. 13 Dr. Ranveer has also stated the age of Sunita between 14-16 years. Thus, from the evidence on record, it can safely be said that in any case Ku. Sunita was below the age of 18 years at the time of incident and that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the accused kidnapped or took away Sunita from the lawful guardianship without the consent of guardian. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court in recording guilt under Section 363 against the appellant calls for no interference. 10. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court in recording guilt under Section 363 against the appellant calls for no interference. 10. So far as conviction of the appellant under Section 366A IPC is concerned, it must be established that a minor girl below the age of 18 years has been induced by a person from her house with an intention or knowledge that she would be forced or seduced to illegal intercourse with him or with another person. Admittedly, the age of Sunita was below 18 years at the time of incident. Ku. Sunita in her statement has stated that accused enticed her on the pretext that he will get new clothes stitched. He had also threatened to kill her. She has stated that accused kept her with him for fifteen days and during this period he did intercourse with her every day. The accused has also not been able to explain that he took away Ku. Sunita for some other reasons except to fulfil his sexual lust. Thus, in our opinion the learned trial court has rightly held that the accused took with him Kumari Sunita, a minor girl with the only intention to have sexual intercourse with her. 11. On the question of sentence, learned counsel for the accused appellant has submitted that taking into consideration the age of the accused and the fact that it was his first offence, a lenient view may be taken and he may be sentenced to the term already undergone by him. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the point of sentence. The trial court has awarded sentence to the accused appellant for a term of 4 years for offence under Section 363 and 5 years for the offence under Section 366A IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period for which he remained in custody during trial shall be set off. The accused appellant has been in jail since 6.3.1997 i.e. more than 4 years and therefore, he has served out major part of the sentence. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mango Ram (2000) 7 SCC 224 ) , the Apex Court while convicting the accused under Section 376 IPC reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. The accused appellant has been in jail since 6.3.1997 i.e. more than 4 years and therefore, he has served out major part of the sentence. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mango Ram (2000) 7 SCC 224 ) , the Apex Court while convicting the accused under Section 376 IPC reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. This court also in Dhoor Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan 2000 WLC Raj) 248 (UC) while maintaining the conviction of the appellants u/s 376 and 366 IPC reduced the sentence of 7 years to the period already undergone i.e. 2 years and 1 month. 13. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the accused appellant at the time of incident, the period of more than 4 years already served out and in view of the case laws cited above, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the accused appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. 14. In the result, the conviction of the accused appellant under Section 363 and 366 A IPC is confirmed with the modification on the question of sentence that the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. With this modification on the point of sentence, the appeals stands dismissed. The accused appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. *******