JUDGMENT 1. Appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and conviction passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in S.T. No. 3/94 vide impugned judgment dated 20.1.99 whereby being convicted u/s. 363 of IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 250/- in default to suffer further RI for 1 month. 2. As per the prosecution case father of prosecutrix was living in Awas Colony Babai District Hoshangabad. On 7.07.92 he with his wife Tulsa Bai were gone to their agricultural field and in his house his father and two children were living. In the evening at 5 p.m. when he returned from agricultural field, his daughter Rajjo Bai was not present in the house. He searched her and thereafter, lodged report in police station Babai and on his report a case of 'Gum Insan' has been registered. On 5.3.93 prosecutrix Rajjo Bai was found alongwith appellant in his village Deorikala. Completing the investigation, appellant was charge sheeted u/s. 363, 366, 376 of IPC. 3. Leamed counsel for appellant Shri Shukla has submitted that he is only challenging the quantum of sentence. 4. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that as per finding of the Court below, prosecutrix was approximately 18 years at the time of incident. Further, PW- 7 prosecutrix has admitted in her cross-examination that she was very well known to appellant who used to live in her locality alongwith his brother-in-law. Prosecutrix has ramained with appellant at various places for about 6 months. The Court below has rightly convicted appellant under the aforesaid section. Nothing could be brought on record so as to suggest that appellant is falsely implicated in any extraneous consideration. 5. With regard to sentence is concerned, admittedly appellant was in jail from 6.3.93 to 2.4.93 + 2 days (total 28 days). No previous criminal conduct of the appellant has been proved by prosecution. No fruitful propose will be served by sending applicant for short term of sentence in jail. The incident is about more that 19 years old therefore, the jail sentence awarded by the Court below can be reduced to the period already undergone by appellant in jail. 6. Resultantly. appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of appellant u/s: 363 of lPC is affirmed. Appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone however the fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 6. Resultantly. appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of appellant u/s: 363 of lPC is affirmed. Appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone however the fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 2500/- in default to suffer further RI for 4 months. 7. With the modification. the appeal is allowed in part. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance. D. Shukla for appellant; Sameer Chille, Government Advocate for respondent/State.