This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.3.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi in Sessions Case No.69(DM)/2003 convicting the accused-appellant under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to payment of fine to suffer R.I. for another 6 months for the offence aforesaid. 2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such a judgment, the accused appellant has preferred this jail appeal. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24.2.2003 at about 7 P.M, prosecutrix, the minor daughter of Muslima Khatoon, was strolling inside her compound. Suddenly, the accused appellant Hassen Ali and one Basir Ali, since deceased, appeared there and lifted her from the courtyard of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix raised alarm for which her neighbours rushed to the residence of the aforesaid prosecutrix. But before rendering any help to the prosecutrix, accused persons fled away therefrom taking advantage of the darkness and also taking the prosecutrix with them. 4. An F.I.R. to that effect was lodged with police at Dhula Police Station on 25.2.2003. On the receipt of the F.I.R., Police registered a case and ordered investigation. In due course, Sri Naren Deka, A.S.I. of Police visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses, rescued the victim girl, apprehended the accused persons and on completion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet under Section 366A/376/34 I.P.C. against both the accused persons namely, Hassen Ali and Basir Ali, since deceased and forwarded them to the Court to stand their trial. 5. Since the offences under Section 366 A /376 IPC are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate, before whom charge sheet was so laid, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for disposal in accordance with law. Learned Sessions Judge after commitment of the case and after hearing the parties, framed charge under Section 366/34 IPC against both the accused persons and the charge, so framed, on being read over and explained to both of them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. However, during the pendency of the case, one of the accused persons, namely, Basir Ali, expired and as such, the case stood abetted against him. During trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses including the Medical Officer and Investigating Officer. 6. However, during the pendency of the case, one of the accused persons, namely, Basir Ali, expired and as such, the case stood abetted against him. During trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses including the Medical Officer and Investigating Officer. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC. 7. The accused plea was of total denial. However, on being required, he declined to adduce any evidence. Learned Sessions Judge, on completion of the trial and after hearing the arguments advanced by the parties, found the accused guilty of offence under Section 366 A I.P.C, convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to punishment as aforesaid. 8. It is that judgment which has been assailed in this appeal. I have heard Mr. H. Chanda, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. I have carefully perused the materials on record as well. 9. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of accused appellant has fairly submitted that judgment of the trial, as far as the conviction of the accused under Section 366A IPC is concerned, invites no interference. He has however, submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in which the offence in question was committed, the punishment imposed on the accused person is found to be disproportionate with the charge leveled and proved and as such, he urges the Court to reduce the sentence, imposed upon the accused appellant. 10. I have considered the evidence on record having regard to the submissions of the counsel for the parties in view. On perusal of the evidence on record, I have found that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge under Section 366A I.P.C. against the accused person and the learned trial Court was, therefore, justified in convicting the accused appellant under the aforesaid provisions of law. 11. However, considering the fact that he was involved in the offence in question only as associates of main accused who had already expired, I am of the opinion that the accused deserves to be treated little leniently. 12. Accordingly, sentence imposed upon the accused appellant is reduced from R.I. for 7 (seven) years and a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default R.I. for another 6 (six) months to R.I. for 6 (six) years and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default S.I. for another one month. 13. 12. Accordingly, sentence imposed upon the accused appellant is reduced from R.I. for 7 (seven) years and a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default R.I. for another 6 (six) months to R.I. for 6 (six) years and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default S.I. for another one month. 13. With the above modifications in the impugned judgment, the jail appeal is disposed of. 14. Return the L.C.R. to the lower Court along with a copy of this judgment and order. 15. I appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. H. Chanda, learned Amicus Curiae. An amount to the tune of Rs.5,000/- be paid to the Amicus Curiae as being his fees. _____________