Judgment :- The learned counsel appearing for the appellant is present and seeks indulgence from this Court for arguing the case. The learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to argue the case. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment in S.C.No.226 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chidambaram. The accused has been charged under Sections 376 and 448 of IPC. 3. The learned Committal Magistrate on appearance of the accused had furnished copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and since the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, who had committed under Section 209 of Cr.P.C.. On appearance before the learned Sessions Judge, the charges under Sections 376 and 448 of IPC, were framed against the accused and when questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty. 4. On the side of the Prosecution , P.Ws 1 to 15 were examined. Exs P1 to P19 were exhibited and M.Os 1 to 5 were marked. 5. According to P.W.1, the mother of the victim, was living with her daughter P.W.2 from the date on which her husband deserted her and at the time of the occurrence, the victim girl P.W.2 was studying in VIII Standard and on 24. 2004 at about 6.00 a.m., P.W.1 had left the house for attending to her work, when she returned to the home, P.W.2 had complained that the accused had committed the offence of rape on her. P.W.5 the neighbour had asked P.W.3 to go and saw what had happened to P.W.2 after hearing her distress call. P.W.3,P.W.4 and P.W.5 who are all neighbours of P.W.1 have seen the accused coming out of the house of P.W.1 and P.W.2 was crying. P.W.6 and P.W.10 have also seen the accused near the house of P.W.1. P.W.1 had preferred a complaint Ex P1 with the All Women Police Station, Chidambaram and had handed over the wearing apparels of P.W.2 viz., M.O2 and M.O.3. The complaint was registered by P.W.15 under All Women Police Station Crime NO.4 of 2004 under Section 376 of IPC . Ex P11 is the First Information Report. P.W.15 had rushed to the place of occurrence at about 12.00 noon on the same day and prepared Ex P4 observation Mahazar in the presence of P.W.8 and P.W.9 and had drawn Ex P12 rough sketch. He had examined witnesses and recorded their statements. Ex P11 is the First Information Report. P.W.15 had rushed to the place of occurrence at about 12.00 noon on the same day and prepared Ex P4 observation Mahazar in the presence of P.W.8 and P.W.9 and had drawn Ex P12 rough sketch. He had examined witnesses and recorded their statements. The material objects M.O.2 and M.O.3 were seized from the victim girl. P.W.2 had sent them to the Court through Ex P13, Form 95. The victim girl as well as the accused were sent to hospital for subjecting themselves for medical examination under the requisition Ex P14. Ex P15 is the letter of requisition sent by the Court to the Hospital. P.W.12 is the doctor, who had examined the accused and issued Ex P6 Potency Certificate. P.W.2 was examined by the same doctor P.W.12 and Ex P16 is the certificate issued by P.W.12. P.W.13 who had also examined P.W.2 and issued Ex P7 medical report stating that P.W.2 might have been subjected to an offence of rape. Ex P8 is smear report. She has further opined that the hymen of P.W.2 was not in tact. Ex P9 is the age certificate given by P.W.14, the Radiologist on the basis of M.O.4 and M.O.5 X-rays. Ex P10 is the certificate relating to the accused showing the age of the accused as above 20 years. Ex P19 is the Chemical analysts report. After completing the investigation, P.W.15 has filed the charge sheet against the accused. .6. When incriminating circumstances under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were put to the accused, he would deny his complicity with the crime. After going through the materials available on record before the trial Court by the prosecution including the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge has come to a conclusion that the offence constituted under Sections 376 and 448 of IPC has been made out against the accused by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the accused under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years Rigorous imprisonment, and slapped a fine of Rs.1000/-with default sentence and convicted the accused under Section 448 of IPC, no separate sentence was imposed under Section 448 of IPC. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, the accused has preferred this appeal. 7. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, the accused has preferred this appeal. 7. On the basis of the evidence of P.W.2, the victim girl whose evidence was corroborated with the medical evidence of P.W.13, the learned trial Judge has come to a conclusion that the offence under Section 376 of IPC has been committed on the victim girl P.W.2. Immediately after the occurrence, P.W2 has informed her mother. P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 have seen the accused in the house of P.W.1 at the time of occurrence. The age of the victim girl at the time of the occurrence is only 14, has been proved through the evidence of P.W.4 Radiologist , who had issued Ex P9 X-rays. According to P.W.14, the age of the accused at the time of the occurrence is 20. Ex P10 is the age certificate issued to the accused. There is no delay in preferring the first information report in this case. No specific defence was put forward by the accused when he was subjected to question under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Taking into consideration, all the circumstances which go against the accused, the learned trial Judge has come to the correct conclusion that an offence under Section 376 of IPC has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced him. .8. Now the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would state that subsequent to the conviction of the learned trial Judge, the accused had married the victim girl and they are now living together peacefully and that a panchayat was also taken place between the parties on 33. 2006 and in pursuance of that a deed of compromise was entered into between the parents of the accused as well as the parents of the victim girl and the document relating to the registration of Marriage in the Arulmigu Muthumariamman Koil, Chidambaram between the accused and the victim girl showing that the marriage between them was solemnized in the temple on 9. 2006 at about 9.00 a.m are also produced before this Court. 9. Further it is represented on behalf of the appellant that the accused had already in prison for more than two years after the conviction by the trial Court. 2006 at about 9.00 a.m are also produced before this Court. 9. Further it is represented on behalf of the appellant that the accused had already in prison for more than two years after the conviction by the trial Court. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that instead of sending the accused to prison, once again while convicting the accused under Section 376 IPC, the sentence alone can be modified to that of the period already undergone instead of seven years RI. 10. In fine, the appeal is dismissed but the sentence alone is modified to that of the period already undergone instead of seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 of IPC. The fine amount will sustain. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P.No.4424 of 2006 is also dismissed.