Surendra Kumar, J. 1. This jail appeal has emanated from the judgment and order dated 11.11.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 430 of 2007-State Vs. Surjeet, relating to Crime No.89 of 2006, under Section 376 I.P.C., Police Station Pali Mukeempur, District Aligarh, whereby the accused appellant Surjeet was convicted under section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to ten years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo three months imprisonment. The accused appellant Surjeet as under trial prisoner remained in jail during trial and continues to be in jail even after his conviction by the impugned judgment. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed from the written report ( Ext. Ka-1) of the first informant Raj Mohammad PW-1 and from the evidences of Raj Mohammad PW-1, his son Idrees PW-2 and minor victim girl Km. Afsana PW-3, is that on 6.8.2006 around 11.00 A.M., Unis and Idrees sons of the first informant and Km. Afsana, daughter of the first informant, had gone to the field of Fauran Singh for weeding out the weeds growing in the millet crop. The accused appellant Surjeet, son of Ratan Singh, resident of village Nagla Bijauli, Police Station Pali Mukeempur, District Aligarh was already present at the field. The accused appellant Surjeet had sent her brother Idrees PW-2 to call Kripal Singh, real uncle/chacha of the accused appellant Surjeet from his well. The accused appellant Surjeet also sent Unis, elder brother of the victim girl, from the field to his village for bringing his friend Nanak. Thus, the accused appellant Surjeet first of all managed to send both the brothers of the victim girl from the field of millet and taking advantage of her being alone there, caught hold of the victim girl and had sexual intercourse with her against her will. On the cries of the victim girl, her brother Idrees and two others immediately reached on the spot when the accused appellant scampered. Idrees brought his sister victim girl in an unconscious state to his house and narrated the whole incident to his father Raj Mohammad PW-1. Raj Mohammad PW-1 got the written report of the incident scribed from Ganga Sahai and handed it over, next day on 7.8.2006 at 6.40 A.M. nominating Surjeet as accused, at the police Station Pali Mukeempur. 3. Idrees brought his sister victim girl in an unconscious state to his house and narrated the whole incident to his father Raj Mohammad PW-1. Raj Mohammad PW-1 got the written report of the incident scribed from Ganga Sahai and handed it over, next day on 7.8.2006 at 6.40 A.M. nominating Surjeet as accused, at the police Station Pali Mukeempur. 3. On the basis of the written report ( Ext. Ka-1), the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged and chik F.I.R. ( Ext. Ka-5) was prepared by constable clerk Ram Gopal Singh PW-5, who proved the chik F.I.R. ( Ext. Ka-5) and G.D. entry ( Ext. Ka-6) in his evidence at the trial. PW-5 deposed that Raj Mohammad came to the police station with his daughter victim girl and son Idrees and others at the police station for lodging the F.I.R. and the same was given to him. 4. The investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I. Sri Pramod Kumar Tiwari PW-6 on 7.8.2006 itself when he started investigation. He recorded interrogatory statements of the first informant Raj Mohammad PW-1, his son Idrees PW-2 and the victim girl Km. Afsana PW-3. PW-6 seized the clothes/Salwar and Kurti of the victim girl on 10.8.2006 vide memo Ext. Ka-2 and at the pointing out of the first informant and the victim girl, inspected the place of the incident and prepared site plan ( Ext. Ka-7). After getting the medical examination report of the victim girl, the Investigating Officer got the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C ( Ext. Ka-3) on 23.9.2006, thereafter he added the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and after completing investigation, submitted charge sheet ( Ext. Ka-8) in the court against the accused appellant. After submitting the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer sent the clothes/Salwar and Kurti of the victim girl allegedly worn by her at the time of the incident to the Forensic Science Laboratory for test. The Forensic Science Laboratory report ( Ext. Ka-9) was received on 31.8.2007. All these facts were proved by the Investigating Officer PW-6 in his evidence at the trial. The Forensic Science Laboratory report ( Ext. Ka-9) was received on 31.8.2007. All these facts were proved by the Investigating Officer PW-6 in his evidence at the trial. It appears from the cross examination of the Investigating Officer Sri Tiwari PW-6 that the place of the incident was the field where millet crop was growing but the crop was not found broken or pressed at the place of the incident and to the west thereof, there was agricultural field of accused appellant Surjeet. He lodged the sealed bundle of the clothes of the victim girl at the store room of the police station on 10.8.2006. The Investigating Officer denied the defence suggestion that at the time of recording the statement of the victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. some pressure or undue influence was exerted upon the girl to give evidence against the accused appellant before the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Aligarh 5. Dr. Usha Jain PW-7, who was posted as Medical Officer, Mohan Lal Gautam Women Hospital, Aligarh, examined Km. Afsana victim girl on 6.8.2006 at 10.00 P.M. where the victim girl was brought by police constable. Dr. Jain prepared medical examination report of the victim girl ( Ext. Ka10), according to which, the teeth were 12-12 on each jaw, breasts were not developed, no axillary or pubic hair present. On external examination, no mark of injury on her person or private parts of the victim girl was found. Hymen torn at 6 O'clock position, adjoining perineum torn, bleeding slight. Vaginal smear slide was prepared to determine the presence of spermatozoa. X-ray for age determination of the victim girl was also advised. Dr. Jain proved the medical examination report ( Ext. Ka-10) in her evidence at trial. Dr. Jain PW-7 prepared the supplementary report of the victim girl ( Ext. Ka-11) after perusing the X-ray report and vaginal smear report. In the right elbow joint epiphyses of medial epicondyl were not fused. Epiphyses around wrist were not fused. No spermatozoa was found in the vaginal smear report. On the basis of Radiological test, age of the victim girl was found about 15 years and no definite opinion about rape could be given. Dr. Jain clearly deposed that injury on the hymen could possibly be caused by hard and blunt object and it might be by male sex organ. No spermatozoa was found in the vaginal smear report. On the basis of Radiological test, age of the victim girl was found about 15 years and no definite opinion about rape could be given. Dr. Jain clearly deposed that injury on the hymen could possibly be caused by hard and blunt object and it might be by male sex organ. When the victim girl was brought to the lady doctor by police, Majroobi Chitthi was also brought with her. In the Forensic Science Laboratory report ( Ext. Ka-9), spermatozoas were found on the Salwar of the victim girl and human semen was also found on her Salwar. 6. The accused appellant Surjeet was charged under Section 376 I.P.C. on 23.10.2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Aligarh who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried on the said charge. 7. The prosecution for the purpose of proving its case examined the first informant Raj Mohammad PW-1, father of the victim girl, his son Idrees aged about 18 years PW-2 and Km. Afsana victim girl PW-3 as fact witnesses. Dr. V.D. Sharma, Senior Consulting Radiologist PW-4 was also examined by the prosecution, who proved the X-ray report ( Ext. Ka-4) of the victim girl and X-ray plates ( Ext. Ka-1 and Ka-2). He opined that the victim girl was aged about 14 years and below 16 years on the basis of X-ray finding. The prosecution also examined constable clerk Ram Gopal Singh to prove the chik report and G.D. ( Exts. Ka-5 and Ka-6) respectively. S.I. Sri Pramod Kumar Tiwari was also examined by the prosecution who recorded the statement of the witnesses, got the statement of the victim girl recorded and submitted the charge sheet ( Ext. Ka-8) under Section 376 I.P.C. Dr. Usha Jain PW-7 was also examined to prove the medical examination reports of the victim girl ( Ext. Ka-10 and Ka-11). According to Dr. Jain, the victim girl was aged about 15 years at that time. She clearly deposed that hymen injury could be caused by hard and blunt object, it might be by male sex organ. 8. The accused appellant Surjeet in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution story and pleaded his false implication due to old enmity. According to him, Idrees PW-2 and the victim girl PW-3 had deposed under pressure of their father. 8. The accused appellant Surjeet in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution story and pleaded his false implication due to old enmity. According to him, Idrees PW-2 and the victim girl PW-3 had deposed under pressure of their father. He also stated that impartial and complete investigation was not done due to influence of the father of the victim girl. He also stated that the first informant, father of the victim girl had already borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from his father for purchasing a she buffalo. When his father asked for payment of the said borrowed amount and compelled the first informant to pay the said amount, then he was falsely implicated in this case of rape. 9. Before discussing and analysing the evidence led by the prosecution, it is necessary to have a look on the evidence of fact witnesses. 10. Raj Mohammad PW-1, father of the victim girl, his son Idrees PW-2, brother of the victim girl and Smt. Afsana PW-3 victim girl have been examined as fact witnesses. PW-1 Raj Mohammad on the day of the incident namely, on 6.8.2006 at 11.00 A.M. was present in his house and his sons Unis and Idrees and daughter Km. Afsana, the victim girl had gone for weeding out the weeds from the field of Fauran Singh. The witness had taken the field on Batai or crop sharing from its owner Chaudhary Fauran Singh. The accused Surjeet was present at this field at that time and he had sent both the brothers of the victim girl on false pretext, consequently the victim girl was left alone at the field where the accused appellant caught hold of her and raped her and on her cries, her brother Idrees reached there and accused appellant fled away. Idrees had brought the victim girl in a critical condition to the house of the witness where Idrees and victim girl narrated the whole incident. PW-1 along with his daughter reached the police station after getting the written report ( Ext. Ka-1) of the incident scribed from Ganga Sahai and gave the same at the police station. The victim girl was sent with Chitthi Majroobi to the Government Women Hospital, Aligarh. Clothes namely Salwar and Kurti of the victim girl were taken in to possession by the police on 10.8.2006 vide memo Ext. Ka-2. Ka-1) of the incident scribed from Ganga Sahai and gave the same at the police station. The victim girl was sent with Chitthi Majroobi to the Government Women Hospital, Aligarh. Clothes namely Salwar and Kurti of the victim girl were taken in to possession by the police on 10.8.2006 vide memo Ext. Ka-2. It is evident from the testimony of Raj Mohammad PW-1 that he was not present on the date and time of the occurrence at the place of the occurrence but he was in his house. Whatever was told by his daughter victim girl and son, the same was mentioned in the written report by him given at the police station. The agricultural field was one kilometer away from the house of the witness and age of his son Idrees was around 20 years and that of victim girl was about 12-13 years at the time of the incident. The witness deposed that the agricultural field of Fauran Singh, where the incident took place, was adjoining to the garden of guava of the father of the accused. He along with written report reached the police station at 12.30 P.M. On the day of the incident, the F.I.R. was not lodged at the police station as the policemen preferred to send the victim girl first to the Government Women Hospital, Aligarh for treatment. His F.I.R. was lodged next day namely on 7.8.2006 against the accused appellant Surjeet giving details of the incident of rape. It was clearly mentioned in the written report ( Ext. Ka-1) and also in the chik F.I.R. ( Ext. Ka-5) lodged on its basis that he ( PW-1) had taken his daughter for medical treatment along with Chitthi Majroobi from the police station as her condition was serious and thereafter he gave the written report at the police station on 7.8.12006 at 6.40 A.M. Raj Mohammad PW-1 in his evidence clearly explained the delay in lodging the F.I.R. next day of the occurrence. According to his evidence, when the victim girl was taken to the hospital, since her clothes were badly stained with blood, she had changed her clothes, hence she did not go to the hospital in the clothes worn by her at the time of the incident. The Investigating Officer reached the village after lodging of the F.I.R. and interrogated the witness including the victim girl. The Investigating Officer reached the village after lodging of the F.I.R. and interrogated the witness including the victim girl. The Investigating Officer inspected the place of the incident at the instance of the victim girl and the police again reached in the village on 10.8.2006. PW-1 was a labourer in some brick kiln and earned some money by selling milk of one she buffalo. PW-1 denied the defence version that witness had borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the father of the accused for purchasing she buffalo. 11. Idrees PW-2 is son of the first informant Raj Mohammad PW-1 and brother of the victim girl and was aged about 17 years at the time of the incident. According to the testimony of PW-2, he, his brother Unis and sister victim girl had gone to the said field of millet to rid of weeds on the same day of the incident around 11.00 A.M. where the accused appellant Surjeet was present. The accused appellant asked the PW-2 to call his Chacha ( uncle) Kripal from the well and Unis was also sent by the accused appellant Surjeet to bring Nanak, the friend of the accused, from the village. Both the brothers left the said field leaving their sister victim girl alone there. When the witness was coming back to the field, he saw that the accused appellant Surjeet was committing rape upon the sister of the witness and seeing the witness, accused appellant Surjeet ran towards East. The witness brought his sister to his house and he narrated the whole incident to his father. Since the condition of his sister was serious, police sent her for treatment to the Government Women Hospital, Aligarh where treatment started. A memo of seizing the Salwar and Kurti of the victim girl, which were of blue colour, was prepared on which thumb impression of the witness was affixed. The said field was taken on Batai by father of Idrees PW-2 only 4-5 days before the incident in which millet was sown by owner Fauran Singh. The aforesaid well was about half kilometer away from the said field. PW-2 had seen the accused appellant Surjeet raping his sister from a distance of 20 yards and the crop, where the rape was committed, was broken. The aforesaid well was about half kilometer away from the said field. PW-2 had seen the accused appellant Surjeet raping his sister from a distance of 20 yards and the crop, where the rape was committed, was broken. The witness clearly deposed that when he saw the accused appellant raping his sister, the accused appellant was only wearing Baniyan and lower portion of his body was naked whereas the victim girl was completely made naked as her clothes were kept on aside. When PW-2 tried to overpower the accused appellant, latter succeeded in running away. 12. The victim girl was examined as PW-3 at the trial. She stated her age as 13 years on 19.3.2008 when her evidence was recorded. The trial judge tested her ability to understand the question and give reply by asking many questions to her and when the trial judge was satisfied that the victim girl was able to understand the question and give reply satisfactorily, then her statement was recorded. According to her evidence, on the day of the incident around 11.00 A.M. she had gone to the field of millet along with her brothers Idrees and Unis to rot out the weeds from the crop of millet where the accused appellant Surjeet was present. The accused appellant Surjeet had sent both the brothers of the witness, Unis and Idrees giving them some work from the field. The victim girl was alone at the field when the accused appellant Surjeet caught hold of her and raped her after denuding her. On her cries, her brother Idrees ran to the place of the incident and seeing Idrees, the accused appellant Surjeet fled away towards East. After the occurrence, she went to her house with her brother Idrees and narrated the whole incident to her father. Her father and brother took her to the police station from where she was sent to Malkhan Singh Hospital/Government Hospital, Aligarh for treatment. Subsequently her clothes were taken by the police. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded before the Magistrate which the witness proved as Ext. Ka-3. 13. Her father and brother took her to the police station from where she was sent to Malkhan Singh Hospital/Government Hospital, Aligarh for treatment. Subsequently her clothes were taken by the police. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was got recorded before the Magistrate which the witness proved as Ext. Ka-3. 13. It emerges from the cross examination of the victim girl PW-3 that on the day of the incident, she along with her brothers reached the field of Fauran Singh at about 11.00 A.M. Since the victim girl was aged about 12 years only at the time of the incident, she was not in a position to understand and specify the direction. When she left her ;house on the day of the incident, she was wearing Salwar and Kurti. The accused appellant Surjeet committed rape upon her for about 10-12 minutes after opening the string of her Salwar. She clearly deposed that at the time of rape, she was weeping and screaming and on her cries, her brother Idrees immediately reached there and witnessed the incident of rape from a distance of 8-10 steps. According to her testimony, after putting off his pant, the accused appellant raped her. The height of the millet crop was about 2-3 feet. At the place of offence, the millet crop was broken. Since the victim girl was aged about 12-13 years only, she in her cross examination at one point deposed that the rapist had covered his face and seeing her brother Idrees, the rapist in the naked condition ran away. She was told about the name of the accused appellant by her brother Idrees. She clearly stated that she gave her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. with her own will independently without any tutoring from her father. She was suggested by defence that she was not raped and she deposed falsely at the instance of her father and brothers, she further denied false implication of the accused appellant Surjeet for the reason that her father had borrowed some money from the father of the accused appellant and when father of the accused appellant asked her father to pay back the borrowed money, false story was concocted. The victim girl denied the defence suggestion that she was aged about 18 years at the time of the incident. 14. The victim girl denied the defence suggestion that she was aged about 18 years at the time of the incident. 14. PW-3 victim girl in her evidence at the trial has corroborated and proved her statement ( Ext. Ka-3) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 23.9.2006 in which corroborating the prosecution story she stated that the accused appellant Surjeet after sending her brothers Unis and Idrees to different places from the field and finding her alone there caught hold of her and raped her at the field. On her cries, her brother Idrees came at the filed and seeing her brother, the accused appellant Surjeet ran away. She was brought by her brothers. 15. A close scrutiny of the evidence of Raj Mohammad PW-1, Idrees PW-2 and PW-3 victim girl, establishes that their evidences are truthful, reliable, natural and trustworthy and there is no reason to discard the same. There is no contradiction or any kind of discrepancy in the evidences of these witnesses. The victim girl PW-3 in her evidence at one place stated that face of the rapist was covered but the next moment she clearly narrated the name of the accused appellant Surjeet which was told to her by her brother as Surjeet had met her when she reached the field with her two brothers just before the incident. She named Surjeet as a rapist in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and interrogatory statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. There remains no doubt that it was the accused appellant Surjeet who finding her alone at the field on 6.8.2006 at 11.00 A.M. caught hold of her and raped her causing rupture of the hymen at 6 O'clock position. Adjoining perineum was also torn with slight bleeding. Thus there was bleeding in the vagina of the victim girl with hymen torn at 6 O' clock position. Thus, the testimony of the victim girl PW-3 is fully supported by medical evidence. The same is further supported by Forensic Science Laboratory report ( Ext. Ka-9) in which human semen and spermatozoas were found on the Salwar of the victim girl. It is true that Kurti and Salwar of the victim girl, which were seized by the police and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for test regarding which a report ( Ext. Ka-9) was made available on record, were not produced by the prosecution in the court. It is true that Kurti and Salwar of the victim girl, which were seized by the police and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for test regarding which a report ( Ext. Ka-9) was made available on record, were not produced by the prosecution in the court. Non production of the clothes of the victim girl having human semen, in the court at the time of evidence was not mandatory as the Forensic Science Laboratory report ( Ext. Ka-9) had never been challenged by the accused. 16. In this case, there is very strong convincing and reliable testimony of the victim girl PW-3 which has been supported by testimony of her father Raj Mohammad PW-1 and brother Idrees PW-2. The same is corroborated by medical examination report of the victim girl. It is evident that during commission of rape upon her by the accused appellant Surjeet, hymen was torn at 6 O' clock position with tear of perineum adjoining having slight bleeding. This injury was most probably caused by male sex organ of the accused appellant Surjeet. The said injury in the vagina was obviously caused by penetration of penis of the accused appellant. Since the victim girl PW-3 was aged about 12-13 years at the time of the offence, she could not tolerate the pressure or force caused by the penetration of male organ of accused into her vagina. This is not a case purely based upon the Forensic Science Laboratory report in which human semen was found on the Salwar of the victim girl. But this is further corroborating circumstance adding veracity to the testimony of the victim girl PW-3. 17. In the case in hand though there is no documentary evidence regarding date of birth of the victim girl PW-3 as no school certificate or date of birth certificate has been produced by the prosecution at the trial but in the evidence of her father PW-1 the age of the victim girl was shown as 12-13 years. Idrees PW-2 who is elder brother of the victim girl was aged about 17-18 years at the time of the incident. The age of her eldest brother Unis was 20 years at that time. The victim girl in her evidence as PW-3 deposed her age as 13 years on 19.3.2008. In Radiological examination report, her age was found about 15 years. The age of her eldest brother Unis was 20 years at that time. The victim girl in her evidence as PW-3 deposed her age as 13 years on 19.3.2008. In Radiological examination report, her age was found about 15 years. It is proved and fully established from the evidence that the victim girl PW-3 was aged about 12-13 years at the time of the incident. If the medical evidence is for a moment believed, she was certainly aged about 15 years leaving no room for any kind of doubt regarding her age. It is proved from the evidence on record that the accused appellant Surjeet had raped a minor girl and had sexual intercourse upon her without her consent and against her will. 18. Heard Sri Saroj Kumar Tiwari and Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant Surjeet and learned A.G.A. for the State. 19. Learned counsel for the accused appellant Surjeet have assailed the sentence of ten years awarded to the accused appellant and fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 376 I.P.C. by the impugned judgment saying that the sentence awarded to him is very harsh because the accused appellant Surjeet aged about 35 years is incarcerated in District Jail, Aligarh since 10.8.2006 and also after his conviction and sentence by the impugned judgment dated 11.11.2008. 20. This Court vide order dated 4.8.2011 called for a report from the jail doctor District Jail, Aligarh regarding illness of the accused appellant Surjeet. The said report of the jail doctor dated 11.8.2011 was sent to this Court by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh vide letter No. 321 dated 11.8.2011. According to the report of the District Jail, Aligarh submitted by Dr. Madan Lal, Senior Consultant, District Jail, Aligarh dated 11.8.2011, the blood sample of the accused appellant Surjeet was voluntarily given and tested in the AIDS Camp organized by J.N. Medical College, A.M.U., Aligarh in District Jail, Aligarh and blood sample confirmed his HIV/AIDS for which he has been undergoing treatment under the instructions of the specialist doctors of Medial College, Aligarh. The report further stated that the calculation of CD-4 on positive findings of HIV/AIDS was got done when efficiency of the body resistance of the accused appellant was found at 126 which is too below than the required standard. The report further stated that the calculation of CD-4 on positive findings of HIV/AIDS was got done when efficiency of the body resistance of the accused appellant was found at 126 which is too below than the required standard. This report further stated that the physical condition of the accused appellant is deteriorating day by day and medicines being given to him for this treatment re not giving expected result. The accused appellant is incapable of sitting independently and his condition is continued to be critical. His health is weakening day by day in spite of proper treatment. 21. This Court after considering the report of the jail doctor, vide order dated 1.10.2012 directed the matter to be put up on 10.10.2012 as unlisted case and the matter was put up as unlisted case on several dates. Since the accused appellant Surjeet moved application to this Court that he wanted to argue his appeal in person and he be summoned from the District Jail, Aligarh, where he is detained, for making submission. The accused appellant was summoned from the District Jail, Aligarh vide order of this Court dated 16.4.2013 listing the matter for 7.5.2013. The accused appellant was present personally in this Court on 7.5.2013 then he was heard by me in person at length. As per his request, his counsel also made submissions citing the health condition of the accused appellant Surjeet. Learned counsel for the appellant entreated or craved for reduction of his sentence requesting that his sentence may be modified to the period already undergone by him in this case as he might have earned remission as per law besides the said period of detention. From the report of the district jail, the accused appellant is in jail in this case since 10.8.2006, three months short in completing seven years of sentence besides the remission earned by him. 22. There is very strong, sterling, cogent and reliable evidence against the accused appellant Surjeet in this case and there is no chance of his false implication even remotely. All the findings/conclusions arrived at by the trial court are just, proper and based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record and there is no perversity or infirmity of any kind therewith. I am left with no option other than to agree to the findings recorded by the trial court. All the findings/conclusions arrived at by the trial court are just, proper and based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record and there is no perversity or infirmity of any kind therewith. I am left with no option other than to agree to the findings recorded by the trial court. Thus, the conviction of the accused appellant under Section 376 I.P.C. is affirmed. 23. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the evidence and illness of the accused appellant that he is suffering from AIDS, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by the accused appellant Surjeet in this case. The accused appellant Surjeet, if not required in any other criminal case, is directed to be released forthwith from the said jail. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant is maintained and the sentence awarded to him is modified to the period already undergone by him. 24. Since the appellant Surjeet is undergoing treatment of AIDS by the doctors of A.R.T. Center, J.N. Medical College, Aligarh, he is directed to continue his treatment under the same center and consume medicines as may be prescribed by that center. The doctors at the said center shall continue to treat the appellant Surjeet as per his request. The appellant shall report at the said A.R.T. Center at Aligarh for his treatment and follow up action on the date specified by the doctors in the patient booklet ( card) which is issued to the patient undergoing treatment at the said center. 25. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the court concerned for ensuring compliance.