JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. Deepak Soni, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Ms. Alka Bhatnagar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. The present is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.11.1987 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 5/1986 convicting the appellant under sections 376 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). 3. Facts, as disclosed by the record available, reveal that a complaint was filed by the prosecutrix namely, Nausad Bano on 09.09.1985 in the jurisdictional court alleging that on 20.01.1985 the appellant had committed rape on her. The parties were however married on 15.03.1985. As referred to herein-above, on the conclusion of the trial and on an assessment of 11 prosecution witnesses, the learned trial court convicted the appellant under the above mentioned sections of the Code. 4. In course of the arguments, attention of this Court has been drawn to an affidavit filed on 04.05.2010 by the prosecutrix affirming, inter alia, that she and the appellant are living a happy and peaceful married life and further that the appellant is a cardiac patient and is undergoing treatment. Medical documents appended to the affidavit prima facie bears out the factum of cardiac illness of the appellant and the treatment being taken by him. Averments made in the affidavit are supported by a verification subscribed by the prosecutrix, who had been identified before the Oath Commissioner of this Court. Though, the testimony of the prosecutrix, as revealed by the impugned judgment and order, cannot be lightly brushed aside, in view of the changed circumstances and the categorical statement made by her in the affidavit referred to herein-above that she is married to the appellant and is living a peaceful and happy married life, this Court is of the view that at this distant point of time, more particularly, in the face of his frail state of health, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court ought not to be sustained and he (appellant) should not be made to suffer imprisonment as ordered. The record do reveal as well that for some time after the conviction of the appellant, he had been in custody. 5. The record do reveal as well that for some time after the conviction of the appellant, he had been in custody. 5. On a totality of the considerations enumerated herein-above in the singular facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and order ought to be interfered with. Ordered accordingly.The appeal stands allowed.Appeal allowed. *******