JUDGMENT : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved of the judgment dated 01.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salumbar, District Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 44/2012, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under: Offence for which convicted Sentence, fine and default sentence Section 363 of the IPC Three and half years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment Section 366 of the IPC Five and half years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment Section 120-B of the IPC Two and half years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo fifteen days' rigorous imprisonment 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 25.02.2011, FIR No. 74/2011 for the offences under Sections 363, 376, 384/34 of the IPC was registered at the Police Station Salumber on the basis of the statement of the victim to the effect that one Parmanand @ Pannalal and the appellant frequently used to humiliate and threaten the victim and her sister and they also subjected them to sexual assault. On 22.02.2011, when they were going to their home from school, Parmanand and the present appellant came on a motorcycle and forcibly took them to Udaipur via Adiwat, Bamaniya, Badwali and Kewada Ki Naal. They kept them in the house of one Bheru Singh at Udaipur and did not return back. They remained there for two days, whereafter police found them and got recorded their statements. The police after usual investigation filed a charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120-B of the IPC. 3. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused persons for the above offences and upon denial of guilt by them, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 20 witnesses were examined and 27 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, explanation was sought from the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he refuted the prosecution allegations and claimed to be falsely implicate in the case. However, he did not choose to produce any evidence. During the course of trial, as many as 20 witnesses were examined and 27 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, explanation was sought from the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he refuted the prosecution allegations and claimed to be falsely implicate in the case. However, he did not choose to produce any evidence. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above vide judgment dated 01.06.2013, which is under assail before this court in the instant appeal. 4. After arguing on merits to some extent, learned counsel for the appellant does not wish to press the present appeal in respect of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and preferred to make submissions on the point of sentence only. He submits that the incident is of the year 2011. The appellant was a young boy aged 20 years at that time. The learned trial court has not found him guilty of offence under Sections 376 of the IPC. The appellant is not a person of criminal nature, which is revealing from the fact that he is on bail since the year 2013 and is living peacefully since then and no report contrary to that has been received by this court. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct in the impugned judgment. He has faced the criminal proceedings for a period of more than 12 years and has remained behind the bars for significant period during trial and thereafter from the date of passing of the impugned judgment till grant of bail by this court, therefore, taking a benevolent view, the sentences awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone. 5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that it was the first criminal case registered against the appellant and he had no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he has remained behind the bars for some time during trial and after passing of the judgment in appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public prosecutor and perused the record and other material available on the record. 7. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public prosecutor and perused the record and other material available on the record. 7. Since the appeal against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court, this court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. 8. As far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the incident is of the year 2011. At the time of the incident, the accused appellant was a young boy aged 20 years. It is was the first criminal case registered against him. He has faced the rigor of the criminal case for a long period of 12 years and more. He is a poor person. It is revealing from the record that the appellant remained behind the bars from 27.02.2011 to 15.10.2011 during trial and thereafter from the date of passing of the impugned judgment, i.e. 01.06.2013, to 18.07.2013, thus, he has remain incarcerated for a period of more than nine months in all. No material has been placed on record to show that his conduct and behaviour within jail was not good. He is on bail since 18.07.2013 and during this period, no report of his involvement in any criminal case has been received by this court. 9. The reformative theory of punishment is in vogue in our country and apparently, the appellant has been reformed during this long span of time, thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now. 10. In this background and in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Haripada Das vs. State of West Bengal, (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648 considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of appellant, his criminal antecedents, his status in the society and the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentences to the term of imprisonment that the appellant has already undergone till date. 11. 11. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 01.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Salumbar, District Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 44/2012 is affirmed but the quantum of sentences awarded by the learned trial court for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B of the IPC is modified to the extent that the sentences the appellant has undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of justice. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. 12. The appeal is allowed in part. 13. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. 14. Record be sent back to the trial court.