JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9.2.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City Distt. Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 122/1998 whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 376 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of which to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. He has also been convicted for offence under section 323 Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. It is, however, directed that substantive sentences imposed upon him under both the heads shall run concurrently. 2. Succinctly stated, the relevant facts are that a case for the aforesaid offences under sections 376 and 323 Indian Penal Code came to be registered on a report made by the prosecutrix wherein it was alleged that her husband being a driver on a truck had gone out on his job and she was all alone in her house. On the night intervening 17.4.1998 and 18.4.1998, the appellant came during the mid of the night and committed rape with her at the point of knife and went away, but returned at about 4.00 a.m. and again committed rape with her. He told her not to lodge any report or to take any other step in the matter otherwise, he would kill her. 3. After necessary investigation, a challan was filed against the appellant. The case was committed for trial. During trial the charges were framed which were denied by the accused. The prosecution examined three witnesses namely; Shanti (PW-1), Kanaram (PW-2) and Dr. Bhanwar Lal Jakhad (PW-3) and got documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/6 exhibited to support the charges levelled against the accused. Accused led no defence. However, he got exhibited police statement of Smt. Shanti (Ex.D/1), her statement recorded under section 164 Criminal Procedure Code (Ex.D/2) and statement of Kanaram (Ex.D/3) in their cross-examination. After affording an opportunity of hearing the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated above. Aggrieved by the same the appellant has preferred this appeal. 4. After affording an opportunity of hearing the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated above. Aggrieved by the same the appellant has preferred this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted at the outset that he does not challenge and dispute the conviction of the appellant on merits for the aforesaid offences. He has, however, submitted that the appellant has already undergone sentence of six years and two and a half months. So, he may be let off on the sentence already undergone by him. The learned Public Prosecutor has also no serious objection to this. 5. I have carefully scanned the entire record and have also gone through the impugned judgment. The prosecutrix has duly supported the prosecution case in her statement on oath. She has deposed that her husband was a driver on a truck. He had gone out on his job. She was sleeping on the 'chabutari' of her house. At about 12.00 in the night, the accused-appellant came drunk and committed rape with her. He then went away from there and returned at about 4.00 a.m. He again committed rape with her. He had a knife in his hand and threatened to kill her if she disclosed anything about the occurrence. She narrated the incident to her jeth and mother-in-law on the following morning. She, then, went to the police station and lodged the report. Kana Ram, PW-2 has supported her version. Dr. Bhanwarlal Jhakad (PW-3) has proved the medical report and corroborated her testimony. Inspite of searching and lengthy cross-examination, nothing material could be elicited from these witnesses on the basis of which their testimony could be doubted. Otherwise also it does not stand to reason that a married lady would falsely level such a charge of rape which involves her own chastity and prestige against the accused-appellant for no rhyme or reason. 6. It is abundantly proved from the evidence on record that the appellant committed rape with the prosecutrix and he has been rightly found guilty and convicted for the offences under sections 376/323 Indian Penal Code. As indicated above, learned counsel for the appellant has also not disputed and challenged the conviction of the appellant on merits for the aforesaid offences. The finding of guilt and conviction of the appellant, therefore, deserves to be confirmed and upheld. 7. As indicated above, learned counsel for the appellant has also not disputed and challenged the conviction of the appellant on merits for the aforesaid offences. The finding of guilt and conviction of the appellant, therefore, deserves to be confirmed and upheld. 7. It is true as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has already undergone sentence for over six years and two and half months because he is in custody since 30.4.1998. He was of about 25 years of age on the date of occurrence. The ends of justice would be met if the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone. 8. Consequently, the conviction of appellant-Gopal for the offences under sections 376 and 323 Indian Penal Code and the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for offence under section 323 Indian Penal Code imposed upon him by the trial Court is upheld and confirmed but the sentence imposed upon him for the offence under section 376 Indian Penal Code is reduced to the period already undergone by him and the sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- and the sentence in default thereof imposed upon him by the trial Court is upheld and confirmed. 9. The modified order shall be given effect to by all concerned. 10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.Appeal disposed of. *******