Judgment C.M.Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment dated 17.1.2003 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I Araria passed in Sessions Trial No. 345/01/ Tr. No. 205/02 whereby the appellant Sanjay Mandal has been convicted under sections 341 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code, however, no separate sentence has been passed under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Each of the remaining six appellants, namely, (1) Raj Nandan Mandal, (2) Ram Nandan Mandal, (3) Bidyanand Mandal, (4) Udabhanu Mandal, (5) Kalanand Mandal and (6) Nandelal Mandal has been convicted under Sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months. 2. The prosecution was initiated on the complain no. 465/2000 filed by the complainant Bhuneshwar Mandal, the father of the victim Raj Kumari. The complaint was sent by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Araria for institution of F.I.R. Accordingly, Nasratganj P.S. Case No. 61/2000 under Sections 341, 323, 376/34 was instituted and the investigation commenced. On completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted and the appellants were put on trial and on conclusion of trial they have been convicted and sen- tenced by the Trial Court as above. 3. The prosecution story vide complaint petition is that on 25.3.2000, P.W. 5 Gavitri Devi had gone out with her daughter Raj Kumari, aged about 13 years for scrapping grass and that after scrapping grass, she sent Raj Kumari with the bundle of grass to her house. She did not find her daughter there. She started searching her and in course of search she went to the house of appellant Sanjay Mandal and she heard some sound from inside a room and the door of the room was closed. The P.W. 5 pushed the door as a result of which the door opened and then she found that the appellant Sanjay Mandal climbing over her daughter Raj Kumari who was in a half naked state. The Raj Kumari, P.W. 6 disclosed that while she was returning with bundle of grass on her head and when she passed through the house of Sanjay Mandal he dragged her into his house and keeping her under fear and also allurement to marry her, committed sexual intercourse with her. The Raj Kumari, P.W. 6 disclosed that while she was returning with bundle of grass on her head and when she passed through the house of Sanjay Mandal he dragged her into his house and keeping her under fear and also allurement to marry her, committed sexual intercourse with her. She also disclosed that keeping her under such allurement, the appellant Sanjay Mandal was doing such sexual intercourse on her for the last 15 days. The complainant Bhuneshwar Mandal says that he was not in the village and he had gone to Punjab to earn his livelihood and that on receiving message about the incident, he returned to his village on 30.3.2000 and learnt about the occurrence from his wife and daughter. He convened a Panchayati in his village on 1.4.2000 and in that Punchayati the Punches decided that since the appellant Sanjay Mandal has committed sexual intercourse with Raj Kumari (victim), the marriage of Sanjay Mandal and Raj Kumari had to be performed. The complainant also said that the Punches stopped them from going to Court or police station for lodging a case in view of the decision as given by the Punches. The complainant says subsequently the appellant Sanjay Mandal refused to marry Raj Kumari and that on 4.4.2000 he conveved a second Punchayati and when he (complainant) insisted for fixing a date for marriage the appellants Raj Nandan Mandal, Ram Nandal Mandal, Bidyanand Mandal, Udabhanu Mandal, Kalanand Mandal and Nandelal Mandal assaulted him (complainant) and his wife with fists and slaps and threatened them not to lodge any case against them. 4. As many as eight witnesses were examined by prosecution. 5. P.W. 7 Bhuneshwar Mandal is the complainant who supported the prosecution case in his evidence. 6. P.W. 6 Raj Kumari is the victim who also supported the prosecution case. 7. P.W. 5 Gavitri Devi is the mother of the victim and she has also deposed in favour of the case of prosecution. 8. P.Ws. 1, Kameshwar Mandal, 2. Tara Nand Mandal, Sukhdeo Mandal and 4. Jagmaya Devi are the co-villagers and they have adduced their evidence in support of the case of prosecution. 9. P.W. 8 Arbind Kumar is the I.O. of the case. 10. The Trial Courts judgment shows that the age of the victim estimated by the Court was 15 years on the date of occur- rence. Jagmaya Devi are the co-villagers and they have adduced their evidence in support of the case of prosecution. 9. P.W. 8 Arbind Kumar is the I.O. of the case. 10. The Trial Courts judgment shows that the age of the victim estimated by the Court was 15 years on the date of occur- rence. The defence took a plea on consented sex but finding that the victim was a minor girl, that defence did not go in favour of the accused Sanjay Mandal who was convicted under Sections 376 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. So far, the remaining appellants are concerned, they have been convicted and sentenced under Sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. During hearing, Mr. Nageshwar Prasad Sinha, Advocate appeared for the appellants but ho did not argue on the merit of conviction. However, he made his submission on the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellants. He submitted that the appellant Sanjay Mandal was a young man, aged 26 years and that the victim was also a young girl and that both were indulged in consented sex. 12. The learned counsel further submitted that the element of consent further appears from the circumstances of the case that at the time of occurrence, the victim stated that the appellant Sanjay Mandal was having sex with her for the last 15 days but there is nothing on record to show that she had earlier disclosed it to her mother. Learned counsel also submitted that the sentence as passed in this case is excessive. Further submission of the learned counsel was that the appellant Sanjay Mandal is in custody since 21.11.2000 and thus he has remained in custody for a period exceeding six years. 13. Thus, upon hearing and perusal of the records. I find the prosecution has been able to prove the charges. However, I find that in the facts and special circumstances of the case the sentence of rigours imprisonment for a period undergone by the appellant Sanjay Mandal will suffice the sentence to him (Sanjay Mandal). Therefore, the sentence to the appellant Sanjay Mandal is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. So far the remaining six appellants, namely, Rai Nandal Mandal @ Rai Nath Mandal. Therefore, the sentence to the appellant Sanjay Mandal is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. So far the remaining six appellants, namely, Rai Nandal Mandal @ Rai Nath Mandal. Ram Nandan Mandal, Bidyanand Mandal, Udabhanu Mandal @ Udayanand, Mandal, Kalanand Mandal and Nandelal Mandal are concerned each of them is sentenced to a monetary fine of Rs. 500/- (five hundred) under Sec. 323 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine each of them will have to undergo S.I. for 15 days. 14. Thus, this appeal stands dismissed with the modification in the sentence as indicated above.