JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant - Rajesh alias Raju challenging the judgment dated 20.10.2008 passed by the learned Special Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 15/2007, whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Under Section 376 I.P.C. Eight years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 8000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' R.I. Under Section 366 I.P.C. Five years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' R.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset does not challenge the appellant's conviction for the aforesaid offences. Referring the Para No. 20 of the judgment of the learned Trial Judge, learned counsel for the appellant prays that the sentence of eight years R.l. awarded to the appellant for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is unjustified. He thus prays that the appeal be accepted in part and the appellant who is in custody for the last nearly six and a half years be directed to be released to the period already suffered by him. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at the bar, perused the judgment impugned as well as the record. 5. The learned Trial Judge vide Para No. 20 of the judgment impugned found that the prosecutrix was a consenting party with the appellant whilst going away with him and also consented in the act of intercourse. However, finding the prosecutrix to be below 16 years of age, the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. as the girl was not legally competent to give consent. 6. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the learned counsel for the appellant has rightly given up his challenge to the appellant's conviction as recorded by the learned Trial Court. However, coming to the question of sentence, it is evident that the learned Trial Judge has held the prosecutrix to be a consenting party with the appellant and rightly so. However, coming to the question of sentence, it is evident that the learned Trial Judge has held the prosecutrix to be a consenting party with the appellant and rightly so. The prosecutrix travelled with the appellant to Bikaner and stayed with him for about ten days. All during this period, she has made no objection to anybody regarding having been kidnapped or brought forcibly by the appellant. The consent of the prosecutrix would not be relevant for un-setting the conviction because admittedly the prosecutrix was not legally competent to give consent for the physical relations. 7. However, having regard to the fact that the learned Trial Judge has found the prosecutrix to be a consenting party with the appellant in the whole act, this Court is of the opinion that the sentence of eight years awarded to the appellant for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. deserves to be reduced appropriately. 8. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence of five years' R.1. awarded to the appellant for the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. maintained. Likewise, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is also maintained. However, the sentence of eight years' R.l. awarded to him for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. isfeduced to the period of seven years' R.1. The sentence of fine is maintained. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.Appeal partly allowed. *******