JUDGMENT Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. This criminal jail appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Vikasnagar, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No.118 of 2016 Dharam Singh @ Dhoom Singh, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 452, 354-B, 506 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC). He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- u/s 452 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- u/s 354B, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- u/s 506 IPC. In default of payment of fine, appellant has to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of three months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the prosecutrix lodged a First Information Report at P.S. Sahaspur, District Dehradun on 21.04.2016 stating therein that she is resident of Pathra Market Siddharthnagar and presently she is residing with her husband in Village Rampur in a rented accommodation. On 21.04.2016, her husband had gone for work and she was alone in her house. Accused/appellant Dhoom, who lives in the same vicinity, trespassed into her house and attempted to commit rape with her. He pressed her mouth and torned her clothes. She raised hue and cry, on which other people from the neighbourhood came and escaped her from clutches of the accused/appellant. On the basis of FIR, Chik FIR was prepared and case crime no.82/2016 under Sections 452, 376/511 and 506 of IPC was registered against the accused/appellant. The matter was investigated. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer arrested the accused/appellant, visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site-plan, got conducted medical examination of the prosecutrix and the accused, taken into possession the clothes of the prosecutrix, and on completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the accused/appellant. On 26.8.2016, charge was framed against the accused/appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 376 and 511 of IPC, to which the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, got examined as many as nine witnesses. PW1 Dr. Rukhsar Parveen, PW2 Head Constable Surya Mani Upreti, PW3 Vijay, PW4 Sub Inspector Raj Vikram Singh Panwar, PW5 Noorhasan, PW6 husband of the prosecutrix, PW7 Dr. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, got examined as many as nine witnesses. PW1 Dr. Rukhsar Parveen, PW2 Head Constable Surya Mani Upreti, PW3 Vijay, PW4 Sub Inspector Raj Vikram Singh Panwar, PW5 Noorhasan, PW6 husband of the prosecutrix, PW7 Dr. Pranshu, PW8 prosecutrix and PW9 Sub Inspector Pratibha. Thereafter, the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, in reply to which he pleaded that he been falsely implicated in the case. 3. The trial court, after hearing the parties and perusing the entire record, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as above. 4. Learned Amicus Curiae at the very onset had prayed that the appellant has been sentenced to undergo maximum rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years, out of the same, he has actually undergone incarceration for more than three years. He, thus, prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record. 6. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and having considered the submissions of learned Amicus Curiae, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt under Sections 452, 354-B, 506 of IPC. The trial court has rightly convicted the accused/appellant under the aforesaid Sections. However, insofar as the quantum of sentence, is concerned, it is evident from the record that the appellant is languishing in jail since 21.4.2016. As such, he has served more than three years of sentence. In such circumstances, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant to the period already undergone by him. 7. Accordingly, criminal appeal is partly allowed, while upholding the conviction of the appellant. However, for the reasons stated above, sentence of imprisonment is modified to the extent that the appellant is sentenced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. Sentence of fine, awarded by the trial court, is not disturbed. 8. Appellant is in jail. Let the appellant be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 9. Let a copy of the judgment be immediately sent to the trial court to ensure compliance. Lower court record be also sent back.