JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J.—Challenge in this appeal by the appellant Muneshwar @ Arvind is to the judgment of his convictions under Sections 376 and 506 part II IPC and imposed sentences of Ten years R.I. with fine of Rs. Two Thousand and in default of payment of fine to under go six months additional imprisonment on the first count and seven years R.I. on the second count, recorded by Additional Session’s Judge, FTC Court No. 2, Kannauj in S.T. No 418 of 2000, State v. Muneshwar @ Arvind and others relating to PS Sorikh, District Kannauj. 2. Briefly stated prosecution allegations against the appellant are that Rajbir, Muneshwar @ Arvind(appellant) and Baby Rani are the distant relatives of the informant Rajendra Kumar Trivedi (PW3) and they often used to visit his house. In absence of the informant they kidnapped informant’s daughter Anita aged about fifteen years on 6.4.2000 at 4.00 a.m. After his return 3-4 days subsequent to the incident informant started frantic search of his daughter during which he was informed by Vijendra Kumar and Ram Swarup that aforesaid accused persons had kidnapped his daughter. Informant therefore went to village Kudaisa, PS Aliganj, District Etah in search of his daughter but she could not be traced out. On asking about his daughter’s whereabouts accused intimidated and threatened informant and pushed him away. Hence,left with no option, PW3 informant scribed FIR, Ext. Ka2, on 16.5.2000 against the accused persons and lodged it same day at PS Sorikh as crime No. 77 of 2000 under Sections 363, 366, 504 and 506 IPC vide Ext. Ka4 at about 10 a.m. GD entry of registration of FIR is Ext. Ka 5. 3. Investigation was commenced by PW6 Sub-Inspector K.P. Rahi, who visited the spot prepared site plan Ka-3, recovered the victim P.W.1 and got her medically examined vide Exhibit -6. Concluding investigation I.O. found prima facie case being made out only against the appellant and therefore charge sheeted him on 8.12.2000. Against rest of the two accused I.O. did not find sufficient evidence therefore he did not charge sheet them. 4. Finding the case of the appellant triable by Session’s Court, Magistrate committed it to the Court of Session’s where S.T. 418 of 2000, State versus Muneshwar @Arvind was registered against the appellant. 5. Appellant denied the charge framed against him and therefore prosecution examined victim PW1. 4. Finding the case of the appellant triable by Session’s Court, Magistrate committed it to the Court of Session’s where S.T. 418 of 2000, State versus Muneshwar @Arvind was registered against the appellant. 5. Appellant denied the charge framed against him and therefore prosecution examined victim PW1. After her evidence, on an application filed by the prosecution rest of two accused Rajbir and Baby Rani were also summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and therefore all the three accused faced the trial. 6. Since the charges were abjured by all the accused, prosecution made an endeavour to establish their guilty by examining in all ten witnesses out of whom PW-1 Anita (victim) PW-3 Rajendra Kumar Trivedi, informant, (father of the victim), PW-4 Sudha Devi (mother of the victim) and PW5 Brajendra Kumar,(Witness of last seen) were fact witnesses. PW2 Dr. Satyendra Kumar, PW-6 Sub Inspector K.P.Rahi, P.W.-7 Sub Inspector Gorakh Nath Pandey, PW-8 Sub Inspector Sobran Singh PW-9 Sub Inspector Shiv Bahadur Singh, P.W.-10 Dr. Sudha Singh were formal witnesses. 7. In their defence under Section 313, Cr.P.C. all the accused denied prosecution allegations and pleaded their false implication. The Additional Session Judge, FTC No. 2, found the prosecution witnesses reliable and their testimonies confidence inspiring in respect of appellant only and therefore held only him guilty of offences under Sections 376 and 506 (II), IPC vide his impugned judgment. However trial Court found prosecution case unreliable in respect of two other accused Rajbir and Baby Rani and therefore acquitted them of all the charges under Sections 363 and 366, 506 and 504, IPC. It further disbelieved prosecution version in respect of charge under Sections 363 and 366, IPC in appellant’s respect and therefore acquitted him of those charges as well. Hence this appeal by the appellant questioning his conviction and sentence on the aforesaid two offences. 8. Present appeal was filed in this Court on 9.10.2007 and was subsequently admitted on 1.2.2008. It was listed for consideration of bail prayer of the appellant many a times but could not be taken up for interim relief. Today, when the appeal was listed, learned counsel for the appellant made a request that the appellant had already remained in jail for 9-1/2 years and his maximum sentence is ten years and therefore his appeal be dismissed on merits but his sentence be altered to the period of imprisonment already under gone by him. Today, when the appeal was listed, learned counsel for the appellant made a request that the appellant had already remained in jail for 9-1/2 years and his maximum sentence is ten years and therefore his appeal be dismissed on merits but his sentence be altered to the period of imprisonment already under gone by him. It was also pointed out that while convicting the appellant, trial Court has ordered that both the sentences under Sections 376 and 506 (2) shall run concurrently and therefore maximum period which appellant is required to under go is ten years. Learned counsel contended that there is no appeal against acquittal of two other co-accused and for the charges under Sections 363, 366 and 504 appellant has also been acquitted, therefore entire prosecution version is not reliable nor the fact witnesses are wholly reliable and therefore there are sufficient reasons for this Court to reduce the sentence of the appellant. Learned counsel further harangued that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and appeal be decided by letting off the appellant by altering his sentence as above. Learned counsel further pointed out that appellant does not have any Criminal history nor he has any conviction to his credit. It was his first crime and once he had not kidnapped on abducted the victim raptus with consent of both can be presumed to reduce the sentence. Learned counsel further argued that keeping the appeal pending for decades to come only to sent the appellant to jail for six months will be negation of his right to life and mockery of justice. He pointed out that at this time appeals of more that two decades ago are being listed for hearing and therefore counting from that angle, appeal of the appellant will not be listed for hearing prior to another twenty five years. Concludingly it was submitted that this appeal be decided as aforesaid. 9. Learned counsel also submitted that on merits testimonies of the victim and other prosecution witnesses are not believable and acquittal of two other accused has caused serious dent in the prosecution case. It was further submitted that PW-10 Dr. Sudha Singh, who had medically examined the victim on 20.10.2000 had found no injury on her body and her secondary sexual characters well developed without any external physical injury. Her hymn was absent with easy insertion of two figures. It was further submitted that PW-10 Dr. Sudha Singh, who had medically examined the victim on 20.10.2000 had found no injury on her body and her secondary sexual characters well developed without any external physical injury. Her hymn was absent with easy insertion of two figures. It was further argued that the victim was a major and the pathology report of her slides also does not lend credence to the prosecution case. It was further submitted that FIR is very delayed and in statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C victim had disclosed her age to be twenty one years. It was also submitted that the informant was not having a clean character and he had even gone to jail. According to appellants suggestion it appears to be a case of consent as victim had left her parent’s house on her own volition and appellant has been convicted wrongly. 10. Learned AGA also after going through the record did not oppose the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant seriously. 11. I have considered the raised submissions and have perused the entire record including impugned judgment. Without entering into detailed examination of factual controversies and scanning of prosecution evidences, prima facie it cannot be said that the contentions of appellants counsel are bereft of substance. The submissions are well merited and do require consideration. How ever since appellants wants not to press this appeal on merits therefore I have no option but to dismiss it on merits. How ever looking to the entire evidence and the fact that appellant has already served major part of his conviction and only a scanty period of six months is left and that keeping the appeal pending and releasing appellant on bail at this fag end of his entire sentence will not be beneficial, and there are good reasons, mentioned above, for reduction of his sentence I think it appropriate to opt for that course as appellant was arrested on 19.10.2000 and since that date he is incarcerated. This view I also take for the reason that appellant has already served his entire sentence one count for offence under Section 506 (II), IPC. 12. This view I also take for the reason that appellant has already served his entire sentence one count for offence under Section 506 (II), IPC. 12. In such a view, I dismissed the appeal on merits by confirming appellants convictions under Sections 376 and 506 (II), IPC, recorded by the trial Court through the impugned judgment and order but alter his sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him on both the Courts. Sentence of fine imposed on him for offence under Section 376, IPC is also set aside. This appeal is allowed in part as aforesaid. Appellant is in jail, he shall be released from custody immediately if he is not wanted in any other case. Let a copy of this judgment be certified to the trial Court for intimation. ————