JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The matter has come up for orders on second application for suspension of sentence, but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is not pressing second application for suspension of sentence as well as order of conviction of the appellant passed by the trial court, in view of overwhelming prosecution evidence available against the appellant, including statement of prosecutrix, P.W. 6 Pinky; father of prosecutrix, P.W. 10 Mangi Lal; P.W. 8 Dr. Arun Sharma; P.W. 7 Dr. G.S. Vishnar; P.W. 9 Kalulal, Investigating Officer; Exhibit P-10, medical report of the prosecutrix, and his only prayer is that appeal itself may be heard finally, as the appellant has already undergone sentence of imprisonment of more than 6 years and 3 months and sentence of imprisonment of the appellant awarded by the trial court under Section 376(1) IPC may be reduced from 10 years' rigorous imprisonment to minimum sentence of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment, as prescribed under Section 376(1) IPC. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor, in view of the fact that the appellant is not challenging his order of conviction, has not seriously opposed prayer of learned counsel for the appellant for hearing the appeal finally and reducing the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant. 4. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, arguments were heard and appeal is being disposed off finally. 5. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 24.03.2005, Pinky had gone to school, but she did not come back after school time, therefore, a search was made and a report was lodged about her missing. Thereafter, on 01.04.2005, a written report(Exhibit P-3) was lodged in this regard by P.W. 3, Satya Narain, Maternal Uncle of Ms. Pinky at Police Station Udhyog Nagar, Kota. On the basis of this report, F.I.R. No. 105/2005(Exhibit P-4) was registered at Police Station Udhyog Nagar, Kota City under Sections 366A and 363 IPC. During course of investigation, Ms. Pinky was recovered. Accused was also arrested. Medical examination of Pinky as well as accused both were conducted. Pinky at Police Station Udhyog Nagar, Kota. On the basis of this report, F.I.R. No. 105/2005(Exhibit P-4) was registered at Police Station Udhyog Nagar, Kota City under Sections 366A and 363 IPC. During course of investigation, Ms. Pinky was recovered. Accused was also arrested. Medical examination of Pinky as well as accused both were conducted. After completion of investigation, Police filed a charge-sheet against the appellant in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 3, Kota, who committed the case to District and Sessions Judge, Kota, from where the case was transferred to trial court, i.e. Special Judge, Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases, Kota. Trial court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) IPC. Accused-appellant denied charges and claimed trial. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined P.w. 1 to P.W. 11 and also produced documentary evidence. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who stated that he is innocent. In defence, a permission was granted to accused to examine himself and he was examined as D.W. 1 and statement of D.W. 2, Ram Yogendra was also recorded. After considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examining the record of the case, learned trial court vide its judgment and order dated 01.12.2005 passed in Sessions Case No. 44/2005 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as under:- Accused-appellant Under Section Sentence Girraj Dhobi @ Girraj Prasad 363 IPC To undergo 3 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 months' additional simple imprisonment. 366 IPC To undergo 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months' additional simple imprisonment. 376 (1) IPC To undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months' additional simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 6. Being aggrieved with the order of conviction and sentence of imprisonment passed by trial court, the appellant has preferred this appeal.7. 376 (1) IPC To undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months' additional simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 6. Being aggrieved with the order of conviction and sentence of imprisonment passed by trial court, the appellant has preferred this appeal.7. As mentioned above, learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge the order of conviction of the appellant, passed by the trial court and his only prayer is to reduce sentence of imprisonment of the appellant under Section 376(1) IPC from 10 years' rigorous imprisonment to a minimum sentence of imprisonment prescribed under Section 376(1) IPC, i.e. 7 years' rigorous imprisonment.8. Since learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the order of conviction of the appellant, therefore, it is not necessary to refer and discuss the facts and evidence of the case in detail. However, I examined impugned judgment as well as record of the trial court, particularly statement of Prosecutrix, P.W. 6 Pinky; her father, P.W. 10 Mangi Lal; her maternal uncle, P.W. 3 Satya Narain; P.W. 8 Dr. Arun Sharma; P.W. 7 Dr. G.S. Vishnar; P.W. 11 Ghasi Kha, Head Master of the school, who produced date of birth certificate of Prosecutrix Pinky(Exhibit P-12); P.W. 9 Kalulal, Investigating Officer; statements of D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 and after considering their statements as well as other evidence available on record, I am of the view that finding of the learned trial Court about conviction of the appellant for the above-mentioned offences, is based on proper appreciation of evidence and the same does not call for any interference by this Court and learned counsel for the appellant is right in not challenging the order of conviction of the appellant passed by the trial court.9. So far as reduction of sentence of imprisonment of the appellant under Section 376(1) I.P.C. is concerned, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, statement of prosecutrix P.w. 6; her age on the date of incident, i.e. 15 years and 3 months and other evidence available on record, I am of the view that this is a fit case for reduction of sentence of imprisonment of the appellant under Section 376(1) IPC.10. 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 ).11. 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. 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." 12. In our opinion, ends of justice would be amply met if we reduce the sentence to three years. We do so accordingly." 12. 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. 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." 13. Hon'ble Apex Court in Ravinder v. State of M.P., (2006) 9 SCC 590 , reduced the minimum statutory sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment to a period of 4 years imprisonment, already undergone by accused, in the facts and circumstances of that case. Para 4 of the judgment in reproduced as under:- "4. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for a period of more than four years, as such the sentence of imprisonment awarded against him should be reduced to the period already undergone. Para 4 of the judgment in reproduced as under:- "4. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for a period of more than four years, as such the sentence of imprisonment awarded against him should be reduced to the period already undergone. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is a fit case where sentence of imprisonment awarded against the appellant should be reduced to the period already undergone." 14. Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar Alias Raju Yadav Alias Raj Kumar Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2006) 9 SCC 589 , reduced the sentence of 7 years' imprisonment under Section 376 IPC to a period of imprisonment already undergone by accused.15. Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred cased, in the facts and circumstances of that particular case, reduced the minimum sentence of imprisonment under Section 376 IPC to a period of 5 years, 3 years, 11/2 years, in one case 4 years, already undergone by accused and in last case to a period of imprisonment already undergone.16. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the above-referred judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and for the reasons mentioned above, I am of the view that ends of justice will meet, in case the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant awarded by the trial court under Section 376(1) IPC is reduced from 10 years' rigorous imprisonment to a minimum sentence of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment.17. Consequently, appeal of appellant Girraj Dhobi @ Girraj Prasad is partly allowed. Order of conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by trial court under Sections 363 and 366 IPC is maintained. Order of conviction of the appellant under Section 376(1) IPC is also maintained, but his sentence of imprisonment under Section 376(1) IPC is reduced from 10 years' rigorous imprisonment to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. All the sentences, in all the offences, shall run concurrently, as already ordered by trial court.18. In view of above, second application for suspension of sentence stands disposed off.Appeal Partly allowed. *******