JUDGMENT : G.R. MOOLCHANDANI, J. 1. This jail appeal has been filed by the appellant-accused challenging the order dated 05.11.2011 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, in Sessions Case No. 53/2011 convicting and sentencing the appellant-accused as under:- U/Sec. 376 I.P.C. 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000, in default of payment of fine further to undergo for two months imprisonment. U/Sec. 376 I.P.C. 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000, in default of payment of fine further to undergo for two months imprisonment. U/Sec. 341 I.P.C. 1 month simple imprisonment. U/Sec.323 I.P.C. 6 months simple imprisonment. U/Sec. 325 I.P.C. 1 year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo two months imprisonment. 2. Ex.P.1 FIR relating to crime was lodged by prosecutrix on 22.08.2009 at 10.00 PM in Police Station Dechu, District Jodhpur, which was registered under Sections 341, 323 and 376 of IPC. The contents of FIR recites:- eSa Jhefr new nsoh iRuh LoŒ gjth jke tkfr Hkhy fuoklh lsrjkok dh vtZ bl izdkj gS fd dy fnuakd 21-8-09 dks fnu esa ,d cts eSa esjh cdfj;ka ckodku rkykc lsrjkok vksj.k esa pjkus xbZ Fkh] rc tsBkjke iq= Jh eksgujke tkfr esxoky fuoklh pksjfM;ka okyk vk;k o eq>s vdsyh ns[kdj esjs vkMs fQj jksddj eq>s idM+dj uhps tehu ij iVddj esjs cnu ij iguk ygaxk dks tcjnLrh gVkdj esjs lkFk [kksVk dke djus yxk] rks eSa fpYykbZ rc esjs eqag es esjk vks<+uk Bwal fn;k] eSaus fojks/k fd;k rks esjs tsBkjke us ykrs ekjh o vius nkarks ls esjs gksB] xky o eqag ij txg&txg dkV fd;k esjs lkFk tcjnLrh cykRdkj o [kksVk dke fd;k ftlls eSa csgks'k gks xbZ rc tsBkjke eq>s NksM+dj Hkkx x;k] FkksM+h nsj ls esjk iq= dqEHkkjke esjs [kkuk o ikuh ysdj vk;k rks esjh xEHkhj gkyr ns[kdj okfil ?kj x;k o Hkksekjke iq= Hkh[kkjke o isaikjke iq= xqykckjke dks cqykdkj yk;k o esjh xEHkhj gkykr dks ns[kdj ogka ls lh/ks bykt gsrq tks/kiqj ysdj pys x;sA eq>s gks'k vkus ij eSus iwjh ckr ifjokj okyks dks crkbZA esjs lkFk cykRdkj djrs le; mlus vius nkarks ls dkVus ls esjs eqag] xky o gksBks ij txg&txg pksVsa vkbZ eq>s bykt gsrq tks/kiqj ys tkus ds dkj.k fjiksVZ djkus esa nsjh gqbZ gS fjiksVZ djrh gwa mfpr dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djkosaA 3. And after investigation charge sheet was filed against appellant-accused and the case was tried by the trial Court, which was culminated with the afore-discussed conviction and sentence. 4. While addressing submissions, learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the judgments (1) State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Mango Ram, 2000 Cr. L.R. (SC) 731 and (2) Panna Ram @ Pania Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2011 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 927 has submitted that the appellant is under incarceration for more than seven years and he has become more than 32 years of age, who is a poor man and sole bread earner of his family, so he be released on undergone, which will meet with the ends of justice. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the record and the judgment impugned. Appellant accused-Jetha Ram was arrested vide Exhibit-9 on 23.08.2009 a day after the incident and the record shows that he has remained in the custody throughout and this factum is also mentioned in the warrant of commitment to Jail of the appellant-accused. 6. Prosecution has produced 12 witnesses, PW-1 prosecutrix aged about 45 years has been examined on 23.04.2010, she has narrated aweful by saying that her husband was no more and about 9 months ago, she was grazing her goats near a Bawkan-pond at Setrawa Oran she was alone, at about 1.00 P.M, accused Jetha Ram approached her and inquired about the direction of Jogiya Ki Dhadi after that he gave a blow on her head and forcefully made her fall and committed rape upon her, she cried and on her cry accused thrashed her and blown fists upon her face and bitten her cheek, lips and other parts. She has also said that after rape, she became unconscious, Subsequently his son Kumbha Ram came with her meal and on observing her in bad condition, called a vehicle-man and she was shifted to Jodhpur by jeep for treatment, where she re-gained consciousness. 7. Nothing abnormal has emerged from the cross-examination of the prosecutrix and she has also said that she became a child widow when, her son Kumbha Ram was of two years. 8. PW-7 Dr. 7. Nothing abnormal has emerged from the cross-examination of the prosecutrix and she has also said that she became a child widow when, her son Kumbha Ram was of two years. 8. PW-7 Dr. Vijay Laxmi, who has said that on 23.5.2009, she had examined Smt. Damu Devi W/o Harji Ram Bheel, she has narrated that the victim was having 15 injuries, which have been specifically delineated in the evidence and has said that Ex.P.6 is in her handwriting. She has also said that there was abrasions on labia majora and labia minora and labia minora was swelling. She has also said that vagina was having injury in its inner part and one cm cut was also there. She has also opined that on the basis of the injuries found on her body, it was probable that she might have been forcibly raped, nothing abnormal has emerged. 9. PW-8 Dr. Dinesh Nagal, who has prepared Ex.8 potency certificate of the accused has opined that upon examination Jetha Ram was found capable to cohabit, FSL report has also corroborated committal of the offence and human semen has been detected on Ex.P.1 Ghagra of victim and Ex.P.3 Chaddi of the accused. All the link evidences regarding deposit and testing of the samples has also remained well secured and intact. The Investigating Officer has also narrated the entire chronology of the investigation, thus the prosecution has successfully established and proved its case against the appellant-accused without any flaw whatsoever beyond reasonable doubt. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has not pressed the appeal on merits on the point of conviction and has contended that the sentence awarded is enormous and the accused-appellant has already served seven years of sentence, so he be sentenced with undergone already served, because he is a man of about 32 years of age and the ends of justice will meet, if he be released on undergone to render him an opportunity to change in future. Learned Public Prosecutor has not seriously opposed the contention advanced by the appellant side. 11. Perusal of record shows that the victim lady Smt. Damu Devi was a widow of about 45 years of age at the time of occurrence, she has got a grown son Kumbha Ram, who has also been examined as PW-6 and who has narrated his age to be of 28 years on 1.6.2011. 11. Perusal of record shows that the victim lady Smt. Damu Devi was a widow of about 45 years of age at the time of occurrence, she has got a grown son Kumbha Ram, who has also been examined as PW-6 and who has narrated his age to be of 28 years on 1.6.2011. The prosecutrix has said that ^^eSa tsBkjke dks tkurh gw¡ tks xk¡o esa ?kwerk jgrk gS** this utterance is indicative enough that the accused is a vagabond kind of person. Ex.P.9 his arrest memo also reflects that the appellant-accused was of 25 years of age at the time of his arrest. It is also delineated in the arrest memo that the detenue was illiterate and was engaged in doing labour kind of job. 12. FIR of the incident has been lodged belatedly by a day, the record of the trial Court does not disclose involvement of the accused-appellant in any other crime and the appellant-accused has remained a young boy of 25 years at the time of the crime, while committing rape upon a widow lady of 45 years of age, who was having a son of about 28 years of age. 13. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has modified and reduced sentence of the accused considering age, affinity and relationship of both accused and victim in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Mango Ram in Criminal Appeal No. 2000 Cr. L.R. (SC) and modified sentence of detenue to already undergone, likewise, this Court in Panna Ram & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan Cr. L.R. No. 927 has reduced sentence of the appellant-accused to already undergone after taking support of Baldev Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab Criminal Appeal No. 749/2007 decided by Supreme Court on 22.02.2011, in which Hon'ble the Supreme Court has reduced the sentence to 10 of years already undergone. 14. In the matter under hand, the incidence belongs to the month of August 2009, a period of 7 years retro to the present, the appellant accused is obviously an illiterate person engaged in labour class of work and according to the statements of the prosecutrix, who is an adolescent of 45 years of age, the appellant-accused was an individual of vagabond kind at the time of the occurrence. Accused-appellant is in custody from 23.08.2009, as such has already served sentence for seven years and few months. 15. Accused-appellant is in custody from 23.08.2009, as such has already served sentence for seven years and few months. 15. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and elapsement of period of time coupled with taking support from the aforesaid authorities as laid down, it appears to be just and fair to partly to allow instant appeal on the point of sentence by sentencing the appellant-accused with a sentence already undergone. 16. Consequently, while upholding the conviction under Sections 376, 341, 323, 325 of IPC, the instant appeal is partly allowed with modification of impugned judgment that the accused is sentenced to already undergone and the fine of Rs.5000/- which was imposed by learned trial Court, is hereby enhanced to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. 17. Thus the appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms, appellant accused Jetha Ram shall be released, if his detention is not required in any other matter, subject to the payment of Rs.50,000/- and same shall be paid to the prosecutrix Smt. Damo Devi wife of Shri Harjiram by way of compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.