ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment dated 05.01.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No.2/2012, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : Offences: Sentence awarded: Offences: Sentence awarded: 376 IPC 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo 1 month's simple imprisonment. 366 IPC 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo 1 month's simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is not challenging the findings of the trial court regarding conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offences and is simply praying that the sentences awarded to the appellant by the trial court for the aforesaid offences be reduced to the sentence already undergone by him. 3. It is contended that appellant was arrested on 17.10.2011 and since then he is in custody and, as such, he has already served a substantial part of sentence, out of the sentences awarded to him by the trial court. 4. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Om alias Om Prakash, reported in 1998 SCC(Cri) 1343 and Raj Kumar alias Raju Yadav alias Raj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2006(2) WLC(SC)(Cri) 538 and the decisions of this Court rendered in the case of Mastan @ Mohan Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2007 (1) CrLR(Raj.) 700; Dinesh @ Dinesh Kumar @ Suresh Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2011 (1) CrLR(Raj.) 192, decisions of this Court (Jaipur Bench) rendered in the case of Ramotar Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2007 (1) CJ(Raj.)Cr. 239 and Vikram Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1127 of 2005) decided by this Court (Jaipur Bench) on 29.07.2011. 5. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2011 (1) CrLR(Raj.) 192, decisions of this Court (Jaipur Bench) rendered in the case of Ramotar Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2007 (1) CJ(Raj.)Cr. 239 and Vikram Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1127 of 2005) decided by this Court (Jaipur Bench) on 29.07.2011. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the sentences awarded by the trial court to the accused appellant for the aforesaid offences are not liable to be reduced to the period already undergone as the appellant is guilty of commission of rape of a minor girl. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor, perused the impugned judgment and record of the case. 7. Since, learned counsel for the appellant is not challenging the findings of the trial court, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC, the said conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial court is upheld. 8. Now, the question before this Court is whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, sentences awarded to the appellant by the trial court are liable to be reduced or not. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Om Alias Om Prakash (supra) has held as under : "2. The question arising in this appeal is : whether the prosecutrix aged out 10/11 years, was a reliable witness to establish charge of kidnapping and rape against the respondent. This automatically means that we have to rub the opposite judgment of the trial Court against that of the High Court. In addition thereto, we have to weigh the evidence of the prosecutrix. Having gone the exercise, we get to the view that the High court was wrong in finding that the prosecutrix, minor as undoubtedly she was, was of a loose moral character, for the medical evidence suggested that she was used to sexual intercourse and she may have gone with the accused herself, demolishing the case of abduction. Even so, she was not in that age to give consent to the respondent to abuse her sexually. But for that, there is no embellishment in her statement. Even so, she was not in that age to give consent to the respondent to abuse her sexually. But for that, there is no embellishment in her statement. The reasoning adopted by the Court of Session in relying on her statement is far more convincing than that of the High Court. We thus, believing the prosecutrix, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore that of the Court of Session, restoring the conviction of the respondent for the offences for which he was convicted. The sentence, however, is reduced to the period already undergone which approximates around 5 years' R.I., under each count. This should, at this joint of time, meet the ends of justice. Before parting with the order, we have to comment upon the observations made by the high court relating to the learned Sessions judge who decided the matter. Those remarks in the judgment were absolutely uncalled for. This Court has, time and again, advised the Courts below to be extra careful in commenting upon the judicial conduct of the members of the judiciary. The adage to err is human' must always be borne in mind and this understanding must percolate down to the appellate and the trial courts. Since presently the judgment under appeal has been upset, those remarks automatically stand expunged. 3. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is allowed in the manner stated above." 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court Raj Kumar's case (supra) has held as under : "1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant was, inter alia, charged for commission of the offence under Section 376 IPC. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 7 years' rigorous imprisonment. In appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant. The appellant approached this Court by filing the special leave petition, which came up for hearing on 7.10.2005, when this Court issued notice limited to the question of sentence. 3. Heard the counsel appearing for the appellant as well as for the respondent state. 4. It is stated that the appellant has already undergone approximately three-and-a-half years' incarceration. 5. The appellant approached this Court by filing the special leave petition, which came up for hearing on 7.10.2005, when this Court issued notice limited to the question of sentence. 3. Heard the counsel appearing for the appellant as well as for the respondent state. 4. It is stated that the appellant has already undergone approximately three-and-a-half years' incarceration. 5. Keeping in view the fact that there was a delay of three days in lodging the FIR and the fact that the doctor (PW6), who examined the victim, in her testimony has deposed that she did not find any confirmatory evidence of rape on the victim, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it appropriated to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone. Ordered accordingly. 6. The appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly." 11. Relying on the above judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court in the case of Mastan @ Mohan (supra) has already reduced the sentence awarded to the accused appellant of that case while upholding the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. 12. From the facts of the present case, it appears that the appellant is the uncle of the prosecutrix and as per the averments made in the complaint Exhibit-P/13, filed by the mother of the prosecutrix, earlier also the appellant went away with the prosecutrix at Abu Road. The said complaint had also been filed after a delay of about around nine days and the prosecutrix had also not been recovered from the custody of the appellant but was recovered from the custody of her mother only on 29.09.2011, as per Exhibit-P/3. 13. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment of appellant awarded by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is reduced from ten years' rigorous imprisonment to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. Consequently, this appeal is allowed in part. While upholding the conviction of appellant - Nikhil @ Banti S/o Shri Arvind Verma recorded by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 IPC, his sentence is reduced from ten years' rigorous imprisonment to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. Consequently, this appeal is allowed in part. While upholding the conviction of appellant - Nikhil @ Banti S/o Shri Arvind Verma recorded by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 IPC, his sentence is reduced from ten years' rigorous imprisonment to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. However, the fine imposed by the trial court is maintained and the sentence in default of payment of fine is also maintained.