JUDGMENT 1. - Since both these two appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 11.12.1987 passed by the trial Court in Criminal Appeal No. 14/1987, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Vide judgment dated 11.12.1987 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur City in Criminal Case No. 14/1987, the learned trial Court convicted the accused appellants for the offences under Sections 354 and 342 I.P.C. and sentenced them as under: For the offence under Section 354 I.P.C.: 1 years' RI with fine of Rs. 100/ in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's SI For the offence under Section 342 I.P.C.: 3 months' SI. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.12.1986 at about 4.00 P.M., Miss Madhubala lodged a written report at Police Station, Brahampuri, in which she stated that on that day when she was going to her house, Vinay Pandey met with at Gator Road and snatched her cycle and put it in a house situated on Gator Road, where Sanjay Chaturvedi was also there. They tried to commit rape upon her. On the basis of that report, the police registered an F.I.R. No. 198/1986 for the offences under Sections 376, 511, 342 and 323 I.P.C. and started investigation. After that the police arrested the accused appellants. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused appellants before the Magistrate concerned, who committed the case to the trial Court. The learned trial Court framed charges against the accused appellants for the offences under Sections 366, 354 and 342 I.P.C., who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution submitted witnesses and exhibited some documents. The statement of the accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court convicted the accused appellants vide judgment dated 11.12.1987, as mentioned above. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment dated 11.12.1987, both these appeals have been preferred by the accused appellants. 5. At the very outset, learned Sr. Counsel Mr. R.N. Khandelwal assisted by Mr. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment dated 11.12.1987, both these appeals have been preferred by the accused appellants. 5. At the very outset, learned Sr. Counsel Mr. R.N. Khandelwal assisted by Mr. Mahesh Gupta have contended that they are not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the Court below, but they are only requesting to this Court that looking to the fact that the occurrence took place on 15.12.1986 i.e. about 27 years ago from today; the appellants are not the habitual offender; it is the first offence of their life; the accused appellants are in old age; they have grand sons and grand daughters; the prosecutrix has also been married; they belong to respectable family; they have remained in confinement for about 4 days; some of the material witnesses have been declared hostile; at the time of committing crime, the alleged offence under Section 354 I.P.C. was also bailable, hence either they should be given the benefit of probation, and if not, then he should be released for the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. 6. In support of their contentions, they have placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Gulab Das & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 10 SCC 765 . They have further placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., AIR 2011 SC 1821 . The appeal Court in the case of Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari (supra), in Para 16, observed as under: 16. We must immediately state that the offence under Section 307 is not compoundable in terms of Section 320(9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and, therefore, compounding of the offence in the present case is out of question. However, the circumstances pointed out by the learned senior counsel do persuade us for a lenient view in regard to the sentence. The incident occurred on 17.5.1991 and it is almost twenty years since then. The appellants are agriculturists by occupation and have no previous criminal background. There has been reconciliation amongst parties; the relations between the appellants and the victim have become cordial and prior to the appellants' surrender, the parties have been living peacefully in the village. The appellants have already undergone the sentence of more than two and a half years. The appellants are agriculturists by occupation and have no previous criminal background. There has been reconciliation amongst parties; the relations between the appellants and the victim have become cordial and prior to the appellants' surrender, the parties have been living peacefully in the village. The appellants have already undergone the sentence of more than two and a half years. Having regard to these circumstances, we are satisfied that ends of justice will be met if the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the amount of fine." 7. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the same. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants as well as the judgment of Honble Apex Court, as referred above, I do not think it proper to release the appellants on probation, but in my view, ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. Hence, both the aforesaid appeals are disposed of with the following directions: (i) The appeals filed on behalf of appellants are partly allowed. Their conviction is maintained, but their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated above. (ii) The sentence of the accused appellants was suspended and they are on bail. They need not to surrender and their bail bonds stand canceled. Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated herein above.Appeal partly allowed. *******