JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by Narpat Singh against a judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali dated 17.2.1987 whereby the appellant Narpat Singh has been found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 324 and 323 of the I.PC. Rigorous Imprisonment for three years, one year and six months respectively have been awarded for the said offences. 2. The charge was to the effect that on 8.10.1984 at about noon, PW-4 Smt. Leela had gone to a tube - well in village Khardi to fetch water, where the appellant Narpat Singh pounced upon her and subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse in a room situated near the tube - well. During the incident, her husband Teja Ram (PW-9) and brother-in-law Daya Ram (PW-1) reached the spot. According to the prosecution story, the appellant inflicted injuries to the said Teja Ram also. 3. Charges under Sections 323, 324 and 376 of the I.PC. were framed and the accused pleaded not guilty. As many as 13 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and 9 witnesses were examined by defence. Thereafter, the arguments were heard, the impugned judgment was delivered. Hence, this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant in the very beginning conceded that so far as the finding of guilt is concerned, the same is unassailable and he has got nothing to say against it. It is argued that three sentences awarded were ordered to run concurrently and in this way the sentences awarded for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of the I.PC. have already been served by the appellant, who was in custody w.e.f. 15.10.1984 to 5.3.1987. According to the learned counsel in this way the appellant has served almost 2 1/2 years sentence. So far as the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.PC. is concerned, three years' R.l. was provided and the incident being nearly 19 years old, it is prayed that the sentence which has already been undergone would meet the ends of justice. According to the learned counsel, the appellant was aged about 22 years at the time of incident and no other crime prior to the incident or subsequent to the incident has been attributed to him. According to the learned counsel, the appellant was aged about 22 years at the time of incident and no other crime prior to the incident or subsequent to the incident has been attributed to him. In these circumstances, it is prayed that some leniency may be shown and instead of the imprisonment of three years, a sentence of imprisonment already undergone should be ordered. 5. So far as the finding of guilt is concerned, I find that apart form the deposition of PW-4 Smt. Leela, there is the testimony of PW-1 Daya Ram, who has corroborated the prosecution story as an eye - witness. Smt. Leela and Daya Ram both have stated regarding the offence of rape as well as the injuries inflicted to Teja Ram (PW-9) by the appellant. PW-2 Bhanwar Lal, PW-3 Lacha Ram and PW-9 Teja Ram are the persons who were in the vicinity of the crime and they have stated that the incident took place and Smt. Leela narrated to them that she was criminally assaulted by the appellant. Teja Ram (PW-9) has stated that he received injuries at the hands of the appellant. The injuries in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of I.P.C. stand proved by the medical witness Dr. Anand Purohit (PW-8). I find no reason to disbelieve the depositions of these witnesses. Consequently, the appeal in respect of the finding of guilt has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. Regarding the sentences awarded, I find that the appellant as in custody from 15.10.1984 to 5.3.1987, and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant are quite reasonable. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case indicated above, I am of the view that in the totality of circumstances sending of the appellant again to jail after such a long period is not going to serve any purpose. Major part of the sentences awarded has been served. 7. Consequently, the appeal so far as the finding of guilt is concerned is dismissed. Regarding the sentences awarded the appeal is partly allowed and for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the I.PC. instead of 3 years R.l. the accused ordered to serve the sentence already undergone. The judgment of the trial court shall stand modified accordingly.Appeal partly allowed. *******