Judgment SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by accused appellants Kishanlal and Ratanlal against judgment and order dated 23/10/1985 passed by Sessions Judge. Tonk in Sessions case No. 32/84, by which each of appellants have been convicted for offences u/ss. 354 and 341, IPC in place of charges u/ss. 376/511, IPC and sentenced to undergo two years RI with a fine of Rs. 200/- (in default, further 2 months RI) u/s 354 IPC, while only one months RI u/s 341 IPC. ( 2 ) IT arises in following circum-stances:on 07-04-1984. Bajranglal (PW6) lodged written report (Ex. P8) with police station Todarai Singh (Tonk) stating, inter-alia that on 06-04-1984 at about 9. 30 A. M. or 10 A. M. his wife Godawari (PW1) and his cousin Rameshs wife Sumit (PW2) had gone to jungle of Basera for collecting cowdungs, and seeing them alone. Godwari (PW1) was thrown on the ground by appellant Ratanlal, who tried to commit rape upon her while Sumitra (PW2) was thrown on the ground with the same intention by another accused appellant Kishnlal. Upon this report, police registered a criminal case initially for offences punishable u/ss. 354, 341 and 323 IPC, for which FIR (Exp9) was chalked out, during investigation, both Godwari (PW1) and Sumitra (PW2) were got medically examined and their injury reports are Ex. Ps. 1 and 2. However, after usual investigation, challan was filed for offences punishable u/ss. 376/511 and 341 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned trial Judge framed charges for offences u/ss. 376 read with S. 511 and 341, IPC, against each of accused appellants who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As many as eight witnesses were produced by the prosecution and, statements of accused u/s. 313, Cr. P. C. , were recorded. One witness was produced in defence. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as referred to above. Hence this appeal. ( 3 ) DURING the course of argu-ments, learned counsel for the appellants has not assailed the findings of guilt recorded by learned trial Judge by the impugned judgment dt. One witness was produced in defence. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as referred to above. Hence this appeal. ( 3 ) DURING the course of argu-ments, learned counsel for the appellants has not assailed the findings of guilt recorded by learned trial Judge by the impugned judgment dt. 23-01-1985 but it has been argued on behalf of the appe-Ilants that keeping in view nature of accusation alleged to have been made long back in the year 1984, and found to have been proved, because challan was filed for commission of rape which stood disproved and instead, they have been held guilty of culpable act of trivial nature as has been evident from the material adduced by the prosecution on record, the appellants may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. ( 4 ) I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties. Since the fin-dings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge against the appe-Ilants have not been challenged, there-fore, they are liable to be affirmed and their appeal against impugned conviction is liable to be dismissed. Re. Point of Sentence ( 5 ) LOOKING to the fact that as per record, both the appellants have remained in PC/jc for the period commencing from 29/4/1984 to 29/5/1984; the instant incident took place on 7/4/1984; about two decades have elapsed since then, and this period is enough to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically, it would not be now appropriate in the interest of justice to send the appellants after such a long time for offences, for which they were convicted, and the appellants who were aged about 22 years at the time of their arrest, therefore, taking into consideration aforesaid aspect, in my consi-dered opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the sentences awarded to them are reduced to the period already under-gone by them with a fine of Rs. 2,000. 00 (Two thousand only ). ( 6 ) HOWEVER, considering the object and scope of provisions of 5. 357, Cr. P. C. , the Apex Court in Harikishan v. Sukhbir Singh observed that in cases of accusation of rape or attempt of rape, compensation for victims should be awarded by the Court on conviction of the offender. The aforesaid view was followed by this court in Kanhaiyalal v. State of Rajasthan. 357, Cr. P. C. , the Apex Court in Harikishan v. Sukhbir Singh observed that in cases of accusation of rape or attempt of rape, compensation for victims should be awarded by the Court on conviction of the offender. The aforesaid view was followed by this court in Kanhaiyalal v. State of Rajasthan. Thus viewed, in the light of aforesaid citations, and in the facts and circumstances of present case keeping in view continuous sexual exploitation women or girls belonging to a poor segment, I consider it proper that the ends of justice would be met if each of two accused appellants pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,000. 00 to the respective victims. ( 7 ) IN the result, this appeal of two appellants Kishanlal and Ratanlal is partly allowed in the following manner: (1)The conviction of accused appellants Kishanlal and Ratanlal for offences u/ss. 354 and 341, IPC is maintained and the appeal against their conviction is dismissed. (2) However, sentences awarded to the accused appellants by learned trial Judge by impugned order dt. 23/1/1985 are modified to the extent that each of them are sen-tenced to the term already undergone by them with a total fine of Rs. 2,000. 00 under both counts. (3) I further direct that each of the appellants shall also deposit afore imposed fine of Rs. 2,000. 00 in the trial Court within three months from today, failing which the learned trial Court shall cause them to be arrested for undergoing further RI for one year, in default of payment of fine. Out of the fine if so deposited each of the victims Godawari (PW1) and Sumitra (PW2) be paid compensation of Rs. 2,000. 00 by way of compen-sation. ( 8 ) TO the above extent, the impu-gned order stands modified. The record be sent back to the trial Court forthwith. Appeal disposed of accordingly.