( 1 ) (CRIMINAL Appeal under Section 374 (2) Crl. P. C. against the Judgment dated 18-8-2000 in SC No. 4 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Mahila court, Vijayawada, Krishna District) the appellant-accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated 18. 8. 2000 made in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2000 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, convicting and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 363 IPC and also to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence under Section 354 IPC, had preferred the present appeal. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 9. 12. 1998 at about 8. 30 a. m. , accused, who used to convey Mandava Srilakshmi, a girl aged below 18 years to her school in his rickshaw, took her away forcibly in his rickshaw thereby kidnapped her, and that he took her into the sugarcane fields on Kunderu Donka Road of Gandigunta, and outraged her modesty and also subjected her to criminal intimidation by threatening that he would seen the end of her family, if she revealed of the incident to anybody. ( 3 ) THE learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada took the charge sheet on file under Sections 354, 363 and 506 IPC and registered the same as PRC No. 58 of 1999 and the same was committed to the Court of Sessions and the Metropolitan Sessions Judge had made over the same to the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada on the point of jurisdiction. The learned Judge had examined P. Ws. 1 to 5 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-4. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that the age of the victim girl would be less than 15 years on the date of the incident and P. W. 1 who is the father of the said girl deposed that she was aged about 13 years on the date of the incident and she was studying 9th class in Navodaya School, Gandigunta. A clear finding had been recorded relating to the age of the victim girl. A clear finding had been recorded relating to the age of the victim girl. ( 5 ) IT is also the case of the prosecution that the accused who is a rickshaw puller was conveying M. Srilakshmi (P. W. 2) and some other children from their respective houses to the school daily and was bringing them back and that on 9. 12. 1998, he had taken all the children including P. W. 2 to the school and it is not in dispute that P. W. 2 had not got down at the school on the fateful day and she was taken away in the rickshaw by the accused, even though she started to the school on that day in his rickshaw as usual. But, the version of the prosecution is that the accused had forcibly taken her away with an intention to outrage her modesty. P. W. 2 deposed that her mother had asked her to convey some information to her relations at Gandigunta and the accused forcibly took her away in his rickshaw in spite of her protest and she had deposed about all the details. ( 6 ) P. WS. 1 and 2 categorically deposed about all the aspects and also presenting Ex. P-1 report. P. W. 3 is the person who went to the rickshaw on hearing the cries. P. W. 4 is the Principal of Navodaya School. Gandigunta in which P. W. 2 was studying on the date of the incident and she had deposed about certain circumstances, which would support the version of the prosecution. P. W. 5 is the police officer who received Ex. P-1 report from P. W. 1 registered the same as a case in crime No. 169 of 1998 and issued Ex. P-3 FIR and he also deposed that he had examined P. Ws. 1 and 2 and recorded their statements and visited the scene of offence and also prepared Ex. P-4-rough sketch of the offence and examined P. W. 4 and recorded her statement and visited Garikapparru village. ( 7 ) THE defence is one of total denial. P-3 FIR and he also deposed that he had examined P. Ws. 1 and 2 and recorded their statements and visited the scene of offence and also prepared Ex. P-4-rough sketch of the offence and examined P. W. 4 and recorded her statement and visited Garikapparru village. ( 7 ) THE defence is one of total denial. The evidence of P. W. 2 well supported up to some extent by the evidence of P. W. 3 and the circumstances well explained by P. W. 4 would definitely go to show that the version of the prosecution is true and the same was established by cogent and convincing evidence by the prosecution. ( 8 ) THE learned Judge in fact had taken pains to record all the aspects and on appreciation of the evidence available on record, had arrived at a conclusion that the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 354 IPC had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. But however, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 506 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. ( 9 ) IN the light of the findings recorded by the learned Judge, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said findings need not be disturbed and accordingly, the same are hereby confirmed. ( 10 ) IT is no doubt a case where a minor girl was forcibly taken to a solitary spot and there is some evidence available on record to the effect that an attempt was made by the accused to outrage the modesty of the victim-girl. Taking the facts and circumstances into consideration, the learned Judge had sentenced the accused to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 363 IPC and for a period of five years for the offence under Section 354 IPC and no doubt directed that both the sentences to run concurrently. Taking the facts and circumstances into consideration, the learned Judge had sentenced the accused to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 363 IPC and for a period of five years for the offence under Section 354 IPC and no doubt directed that both the sentences to run concurrently. ( 11 ) DEPENDING upon the facts and circumstances and also the fact that the accused is a rickshaw puller and has to maintain his wife and children, being the bread-winner of his family and also in view of the fact that no other antecedent criminal record had been reported as against the accused-rickshaw puller, it would be just if the sentence imposed is modified for a period three years under Sections 363 and 354 IPC and the same to run concurrently. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the period of imprisonment had already been undergone. ( 12 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction imposed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court. Vijayawada, on 18. 08. 2000 against the accused for the offence under Sections 363 and 354 IPC in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2000 is confirmed. So far as the sentence of Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 363 IPC is concerned, it is confirmed. So far as the sentence of Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 354 IPC is concerned, the same is reduced to three years. Both the above sentences shall run concurrently. The appellant-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he had already undergone the sentence stated above. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed subject to above modification.