JUDGMENT 1. - Accused appellant Matadin was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for offence under Section 376 IPC for having committed rape on a minor girl aged about 6 year at her field on 8.3.2000 at about 12-1.00 PM. On completion of trial, the learned trial court did not find the charge under Section 376 IPC established against the appellant. However, the learned trial court found the appellant guilty of having attempted to commit rape on a minor girl and accordingly, convicted the accused appellant under Section 376/511 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. 2. Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has not seriously challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 376/511 IPC and in my opinion, rightly so. However, I consider it appropriate the re-appreciate the evidence, which led the trial court to record find of guilt against the appellant under Section 376/511 IPC. 3. PW 8 Dr. B.L. Gupta in his statement has stated the age of the prosecutrix as 7 years. PW 7 Dr. Kanchan Batra, who examined the prosecutrix did not find any injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix. Her hymen was found intact and there was no bleeding. Similarly, PW 9 Dr. Amar Singh Rathore has stated in his statement that he sent slied to the Pathelogist vide Ex.P11 and as per the report no spermatozoa was found. 4. PW 5 Kumari Sita has stated that appellant Matadin came at the field and gave her Rs. 2/- and then made her to fall. She stated that Matadin put off her underwear. He put off his underwear and fell on her. Indicating towards her private parts by hand signal, she stated that she felt pain and having felt pain, when she cried, the accused ran away Thereafter one Satya came there, who took her to her mother. 5. Thus, from the prosecution evidence, particularly the evidence of PW 5 Sita, whose testimony is worthy of credence, it becomes abundantly clear that the accused appellant went to the field of prosecutrix, gave her Rs. 2/-, made her to fall on the ground, put off her underwear and also put off his under wear. 5. Thus, from the prosecution evidence, particularly the evidence of PW 5 Sita, whose testimony is worthy of credence, it becomes abundantly clear that the accused appellant went to the field of prosecutrix, gave her Rs. 2/-, made her to fall on the ground, put off her underwear and also put off his under wear. Thereafter he fell on her and tried to commit rape, but since the prosecutrix having felt pain on her private parts by the act of the appellant to penetrate his male organ, raised an alarm, the accused appellant ran away and could not succeed in fulfilling his sexual lust as is evident from the medical evidence. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that accused appellant attempted to commit rape. I my considered view, the learned trial court has correctly arrived at conclusion holding appellant guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 376/511 IPC. 6. On the question of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that even in cases where accused were held guilty under Section 376 and 366 IPC and were convicted and sentenced to the term of 7 year or 10 years by the trial court, on appeal, they were sentenced to the term already undergone i.e. 2 years only. In this back ground, learned counsel submitted that taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, a lenient view may be taken and the appellant may be sentenced to the term already undergone. 7. The appellant was convicted under Section 376/511 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. By now he has undergone about 2 years of sentence. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mango Ram, (2000) 7 SCC 224 while convicting the accused under Section 376 IPC, the Apex Court 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 appellant under Secs. 376 and 366 IPC reduced the sentence of 7 years to the period already undergone i.e. 2 years and 1 month. 8. This Court also in Dhoor Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 WLC Raj. 248 (UC) while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Secs. 376 and 366 IPC reduced the sentence of 7 years to the period already undergone i.e. 2 years and 1 month. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the cases laws referred to above, I consider it just and proper that the ends of justice would be met if the accused appellant is sentenced to the term already undergone by him i.e. 1 years 11 months and 2 days. 9. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 376/511 IPC is maintained. However, he is sentenced to the term already undergone by him. The accused appellant is in jail and he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. nAppeal partly allowed. *******