JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Laxman Lal s/o Chunni Lal Salvi , R/o Jirai, Bagdunda, Police Station Gogunda District, Udaipur has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.08.2005 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge No.3, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 2/2005. 2. The facts of the case, in nut shell, arising out of this appeal are that Kamla d/o Pratap Singh, aged 13 years, gave an oral information to the police that on 14.05.2004 at 01.00 PM she started for her sister's place at Liyon-ka-Guda. When she reached Fatehpura, a tempo driver asked her as to where she is going and since it was getting late in the evening she planned to return to her house and boarded a jeep . On the way, the said tempo driver who was following her, got her down from the jeep telling that there is a telephonic message from her father and took her in the tempo to Fatehpura and then he took her to his house and she lived there for nine to ten days. It was stated that the Tempo Driver was Laxman Salvi and his residence was at Pula. It was stated that she was kept at two different houses and there she was subjected to rape forcibly. Thereafter, she was taken to police Chowki and there she disclosed the matter. On the basis of the said report, a case was registered at police station, Ambamata for offences punishable under section 363,366,342 and 376 IPC After usual investigation challan was filed. Thereafter, the learned trial court framed charges for the offence under section 366,368 and 376 IPC against the accused appellant . During the trial 18 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and 21 documents were exhibited . Statement of accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. After trial, the learned trial court, vide the impugned judgment dated 02.08.2005 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant does not want to press his arguments regarding the conviction of the appellant under section 366 , 368 and 376 IPC. However, the learned counsel contended that accused was arrested on 26.05.04 and since then he is behind the bars. The learned trial court awarded the sentence for offence under section 366 to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. However, the learned counsel contended that accused was arrested on 26.05.04 and since then he is behind the bars. The learned trial court awarded the sentence for offence under section 366 to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment, for the offence under section 368 IPC to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment and for the offence under section 376 IPC to ten years ' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. In view of this fact, learned counsel contended that the substantive sentences passed against the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone because the appellant has served for more than 6½ years and the prosecutrix, on the date of incident, was about 14- 16 years of age. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor left the matter to the discretion of the Court. 6. I have perused the record. The accused appellant was arrested on 26.05.04 and since then he is in judicial custody. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence passed by the learned trial court is modified as under:- 8. For offence under section 366 IPC, appellant Laxman Lal is awarded 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. For offence under section 368 IPC 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment and for the offence under section 376 I.P.C., to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. It is further ordered that the substantive sentences passed against the appellant shall run concurrently. 9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by accused appellant Laxman Lal is partly allowed as indicated above.Appeal partly allowed. *******