JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal, on behalf of appellant Mangu Ram, is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.10.2005 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Laxmangarh, District Alwar in Sessions Case No.68/2004, whereby accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section Sentence 363 I.P.C. To undergo 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. 366 I.P.C. To undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. 376 I.P.C. To undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 4,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 11.12.2003, a written report Exhibit-P3 was lodged by PW3 Ramlal at Police Station Laxmangarh, alleging therein that on 16.11.2003 his daughter Manju, aged about 16 years, was on his house, Mangu Kumhar who is brother-in-law of his cousin, came to his house along with one Teekam Chand, who is friend of Mangu and both abducted his daughter Manju, they met Teekam Chand on 19.11.2003 and thereafter they made an enquiry and search about Manju and Mangu on the basis of information furnished by Teekam Chand, but Manju could not be recovered, therefore, a case be registered. On the basis of this information, FIR No.322/2003 (Exhibit-P4) was registered under Sections 363 366 IPC. Thereafter, Kumari Manju was recovered, accused was also recovered. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against accused-appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. The trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the above offences. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW20 and produced documentary evidence. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he stated that he had not abducted Manju, but Manju herself came with a sum of Rs. 800/- and abducted him, she was living with him at her own, therefore, he is innocent and has not committed any offence. 4. Learned trial Court, after considering the submissions of the parties and examining the record of the case, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as mentioned above. 5. 800/- and abducted him, she was living with him at her own, therefore, he is innocent and has not committed any offence. 4. Learned trial Court, after considering the submissions of the parties and examining the record of the case, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as mentioned above. 5. Learned counsel for appellant at the very outset did not challenge the order of conviction of appellant in view of overwhelming prosecution evidence available against him and prayed that appellant was arrested on 12.01.2004 and since then, he is in custody, therefore, he has already undergone about 7 years, 6 months and 13 days, therefore, either his sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to a period of imprisonment already undergone by him or to a reasonable period of imprisonment. 6. Learned counsel for the State does not oppose the prayer of the learned counsel for appellant, seriously, in view of the fact that order of conviction of appellant has not been challenged by him. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgment as well as record of the trial Court, particularly the statements of prosecutrix PW1 Manju, her mother PW2 Premwati, her father PW3 Ramlal, PW10 Dr. Shri Battu Singh, PW14 Dr. Indu Gupta, PW15 Dr. Amarsingh Rathore and the statement of Investigating Officer and after considering their statements, I am of the view that learned counsel for appellant has rightly not challenged the order of conviction of appellant. Since order of conviction has not been challenged, therefore, it is not necessary to refer and discuss the facts and evidence of the case in detail. In my view, finding of the trial Court convicting the appellant for the above offences is absolutely legal and based on proper appreciation of evidence and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 8. So far as reduction of sentence of imprisonment of appellant is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties that appellant was arrested on 12.01.2004 and remained in police custody up to 14.01.2004 and thereafter he was sent to judicial custody on 15.01.2004 and since then, he is in jail and has, thus, undergone the sentence of imprisonment of about 7 years, 6 months and 13 days till now. 9. 9. As per police report lodged by Ramlal, father of the prosecutrix, it was stated that Manju was 16 years of age, during the course of trial it came on record that her date of birth was 01.01.1990, as per statement of PW2 Premwati, Manju was 14-15 years of age, as per statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it was Manju, who abducted the appellant and she was living voluntarily with him, PW14 Dr. Indu Gupta, who submitted her report Ex.P15 about sexual intercourse, stated that there was no injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix. 10. After considering all the facts and circumstances and for the reasons mentioned above, I am of the view that this is a fit case wherein sentence of imprisonment can be reduced. 11. In Prem Chand v. State of Haryana, AIR 1989 SC 937 , 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) IPC, 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, (State of Haryana v. Prem Chand & Others) . 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, IPC, to a period of three years imprisonment. Para No.3 of the judgment reads as under:- "3. 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 analysed the evidence tendered by the prosecution. In our opinion, sufficient evidence was tendered by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. 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 analysed 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 State of Chhattisgarh v. Lekhram, (2006) 5 SCC 736 , the Hon'ble Apex Court reduced the minimum sentence under Section 376, IPC, 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-laws' 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 respondent on a false plea that he would marry her. She denied the said suggestion 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 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. The 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. The 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 facts 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." 14. In the above referred cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the facts and circumstances of that particular case, has reduced the minimum sentence of imprisonment under Section 376 IPC to a period of 5 years, 3 years and in one case 11/2 years imprisonment. 15. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that ends of justice will meet, in case sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Sections 366 and 376 IPC is reduced to a period of 7 years and 9 months rigorous imprisonment. 16. Consequently, appeal is partly allowed. Order of conviction of appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC is upheld. The order of sentence of imprisonment of appellant under Section 363 IPC is upheld, but sentence of imprisonment under Sections 366 and 376 IPC, in each offence, is reduced from 10 years' rigorous imprisonment to 7 years and 9 months' rigorous imprisonment with fine and further condition, as imposed by the trial Court. It is needless to mention that all the sentences shall run concurrently, as already ordered by the trial Court.Appeal partly allowed. *******