ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. Respondents 1 and 2, Pooran and Phoolwati Bai, were convicted for offence under Section 366 IPC and Respondent 3, Kaluram, was convicted for offence under Sections 368 and 366 as also under Section 376 IPC in terms of the order of the Sessions Court, dated 16-1-1995, and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and payment of fine and further sentence on non-payment of fine. Against the order of sentence, Criminal Appeal No. 717 of 1995 was filed by the three accused before the High Court. The appeal by the impugned judgment, has been allowed in part by reducing the sentence imposed on each of the accused to the period already undergone, the fine imposed having already been paid. The only reason given in the impugned judgment for reducing the sentence is that the accused are illiterate labourers from rural area and were registering their attendance in the Registry of the High Court till 11-7-2003 and, therefore, it would be just and proper to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. 3. This Court has repeatedly held, while dealing with similar orders, that grounds of this nature are wholly irrelevant for reducing the sentence for the heinous crime for which the respondents have been convicted. Though the finding of conviction, as arrived at by the Court of Session, has been confirmed by the High Court, but it does not appear that there was any consideration on merits by the High Court. 4. In this view, we feel it would be appropriate, while setting aside the impugned judgment, to remit Criminal Appeal No. 717 of 1995 to the High Court for its fresh decision. We order accordingly. The High Court is requested to expeditiously decide the appeal. 5. The criminal appeal is disposed of accordingly.