JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant (Mahender Pal) has filed this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.5.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 36/2002, by which he convicted and sentenced accused appellant for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. for 7 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months imprisonment and under Section 307 I.P.C. he was sentenced for 5 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months imprisonment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.9.2001, the complainant Gulab submitted a written report (Ex.P-1) at Police Station, Amer stating therein that he has got two sons, and two daughters, both are living at village Sangawala. According to him, he is working at Delhi. On receiving a telephonic message, he rushed to his village, he was informed that when his daughter Chanda was working at his field, one Mahender Balai (neighbour) forcibly took her to Bajra field and did wrong with her and threatened to kill her if this story narrated to her family members. The accused appellant took her towards well and put her into the well with an intention to kill her. It is alleged that after hearing hue and cry, Bholuram, Chhoturam reached there and brought her outside the well. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case (F.I.R. No. 358/2001) under Section 476 (sic 376) and 307 I.P.C. was registered. After investigation, the Police has filed a challan under Sections 376 and 307 I.P.C. before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chomu who committed the same to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. But the learned Sessions Judge by his order-dated 22.11.2001 transferred the case to the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1. Jaipur who framed charge against the accused for the offence under Sections 376 and 307 I.P.C. The charges were read over and explained to the accused appellant who denied all the allegations and claimed for trial. 3. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 19 witnesses in support of it's case and got exhibited some documents. 3. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 19 witnesses in support of it's case and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, the statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The statements of accused appellant were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, the accused appellant produced 2 witnesses, namely D.W.l Birdu and D.W.2 Bhagwan Sahai and got exhibited some documents. 4. After hearing both the parties, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Jaipur through his judgment order dated 27.5.2003, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for the charges framed against him as stated above. 5. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court dated 27.5.2003, the accused appellant has preferred the present appeal with the prayer to quash the same. 6. Mr. Avdesh Purohit appearing on behalf of the accused appellant contended that no circumstantial evidence supporting by the eye-witnesses of the alleged incident. According to him, all these surrounding persons who were merely on hearing the hue and cry reached there, but none of them have testified the true version of the F.I.R. According to him, there is an in-ordinate delay in lodging the first information report and the statements of these witnesses given in this regard is not worth believable and the learned trial Court has seriously erred in placing reliance on the testimony of these witnesses. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that as per Ex.P.-15 the injury report of prosecutrix are all simple in nature. As per medical report of the prosecutrix Ex.P.15, the age of the prosecutrix Chanda is 17-19 years. After considering the statements of prosecutrix in detail, I am satisfied that the learned counsel for the accused appellant is right in not challenging the finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court against the accused appellant. Therefore, the order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court is upheld. 8. So far as the prayer of learned counsel for the appellant for quashing of sentence of imprisonment is concerned, I find that the accused appellant was arrested on 18.9.2001 and he remained in judicial lockup on 5.7.2007. Thereafter he was released on bail and again on 27.5.2003 when the judgment was pronounced by the trial Court since then he is in judicial lockup till today. Thereafter he was released on bail and again on 27.5.2003 when the judgment was pronounced by the trial Court since then he is in judicial lockup till today. Therefore, he has already remained in jail for 5 years and 10 months. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his arguments, relied upon a judgment delivered by Apex Court in Prem Chand v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1989 SC 937 , the Apex Court held as under:- 10."In the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment of ten years, awarded under Section 376 (2) I.P.C., to a period of sentence of imprisonment of five years. The state of Haryana filed review petition before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the above case and the same was dismissed. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that review petition is reported in (1990) 1 SCC 249 : 1990 Cr.L.R. (SC) 66, State of Haryana v. Prem Chand and others . 11. Under sub-section (1) of Section 376 I.P.C., the minimum sentence of seven years is prescribed but it is subject to proviso that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. 12. In Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2006) 4 SCC 347 , their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court reduced the sentence of seven years under Section 376, I.P.C. to a period of three years imprisonment. Para No. 3 of the said judgment reads as under:- "The appellant, aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court has filed the above appeal by way of appeal. We have been taken through the statement and evidence recorded by the Court. Our attention was also drawn to the judgment passed by both the Sessions Court as well as the judgment passed by the High Court. The learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the statement of the girl Bimla (PW-5) and also drew our attention to the evidence of the doctor. We have carefully analyzed the evidence tendered by the prosecution. In our opinion, sufficient evidence was tendered by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. However, at the time of hearing it is brought to our notice that the girl has now got married and living with her husband. We have carefully analyzed the evidence tendered by the prosecution. In our opinion, sufficient evidence was tendered by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. However, at the time of hearing it is brought to our notice that the girl has now got married and living with her husband. The said statement is also ratified by the evidence of the father of the girl. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and as affirmed by the High Court under Sections 366 and 376 of the Penal Code is on the high-side. In our opinion ends of justice would be amply met if we reduce the sentence to three years. We do so accordingly". 13. In the case of Chattisgarh v. Lakhram, 2006 (5) SCC 736 , the Hon'ble Apex Court reduced the minimum sentence under Section 376 I.P.C., of seven years to a sentence of one-and-half year imprisonment, already undergone by accused therein, Para 16 of the judgment reads as under "16. The prosecutrix was a mature girl. She was married. She spent a few months in her in-law's place. The respondent was working in her house. They, thus, knew each other for a long time. The prosecution evidently could not prove its case that she was enticed away from the custody of her guardian by the deponent on a false plea that he would marry her. She denied the said suggestion and as presumably she was aware that she being married, the question of her marrying the respondent again may not arise. She lived for some time with the respondent in a rented house. Both the Courts proceeded on the basis that the she was a consenting party. The occurrence took place in the year 1986. The respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court in the year 1987. The same remained pending for about 10 years. Tire special leave petition was filed by the State 230 days after the prescribed period of limitation for preferring such appeal. The delay in filing the special leave petition, however, was condoned. He is said to have remained in custody for about one-and-a-half years. The same remained pending for about 10 years. Tire special leave petition was filed by the State 230 days after the prescribed period of limitation for preferring such appeal. The delay in filing the special leave petition, however, was condoned. He is said to have remained in custody for about one-and-a-half years. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and having regard to the fact that both the Courts have arrived at the conclusion that she was a consenting party, in our opinion, it may not be proper to send the appellant back to prison". 10. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case wherein the age of the prosecutrix according to the medical report Ex. P-15, her age between 17-19 years and looking to the finding of the trial Court in respect of the age of the prosecutrix, I think it fit and proper to invoke the proviso of subsection (1) of Section 376 I.P.C. and in my opinion, ends of justice will meet in case the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the accused-appellant by the trial Court under Section 376 (1) I.P.C. is reduced to a period of imprisonment to five years and 10 months already undergone by him. 11. Consequently, the appeal of the accused-appellant is partly allowed. His conviction under Section 376 (1) I.P.C. is maintained, but his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to a period of five years and 10 months already undergone by him, if he deposit the fine of Rs. 1000/-. 12. The accused appellant is in jail, therefore, he be set at liberty forthwith in case his custody is not required in any other case.Appeal partly allowed. *******