ORDER : 1. This appeal arises from a common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur dated 22.11.2012 by which the Criminal Appeal No.476 of 1996 preferred by the appellant herein against the judgment and order of the conviction passed by the trial court holding him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 458 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") came to be affirmed. 2. It appears that the appellant herein and four other co-accused were put to trial in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur Nagar, District Raipur, Madhya Pradesh on the charge of having committed offences punishable under Sections 458, 363, 366, 307 & 376 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Trial Court acquitted two of the co-accused while convicted the other three co-accused. 3. The operative part of the order passed by the Trial Court reads thus: "19. In this manner, offence of abduction of prosecutrix Kusum from her house situated in village Karma forcibly by the accused persons Manoj and Prakash, is proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Offence of rape by the accused Manoj under his custody with prosecutrix Kusum is proved. 20. In this manner, conclusion arrived at on the basis of aforementioned analysis, offence of section 458 of Indian Penal Code for trespassing in the house of complainant Kamla with intention to inflict injury is proved against accused persons Manoj Minj, Prakash Karketta and Thadiyus Tirki. Remaining accused persons are acquitted from the charges leveled for offence under section 458 of Indian Penal Code. 21. Offence of inflicting injuries with sharp edged object on the person Rekha daughter of the complainant, forcibly abduction of her daughter Kusum Bai from her house situated in village Karma is proved against accused persons Manoj Minj, Prakash Karketta, therefore, accused persons Manoj Minj, Prakash are held guilty for committing offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code, in substitution under section 324 of Indian Penal Code and section 365 of Indian Penal Code. Remaining accused persons are acquitted from the charges leveled for offence under sections 307 and 366 of Indian Penal Code. 22. On the basis of analysis of evidence and conclusion, offence of rape with prosecutrix Kusum against accused Manoj is proved. Therefore, accused Manoj is held guilty for committing offence under section 376 of Indian Penal Code. Remaining accused persons are acquitted from the charges leveled for offence under sections 307 and 366 of Indian Penal Code. 22. On the basis of analysis of evidence and conclusion, offence of rape with prosecutrix Kusum against accused Manoj is proved. Therefore, accused Manoj is held guilty for committing offence under section 376 of Indian Penal Code. Remaining accused persons are acquitted from the charges leveled for offence section 376/34 of Indian Penal Code. 23. Accused of kidnapping minor Kusum Bai from her lawful custody is not proved against all accused persons. Therefore, all accused persons are acquitted from the charges leveled for offence section 363 of Indian Penal Code. 24. Bail bonds of accused persons Sunil Tirki, Vijay and Prakash Lakda are cancelled." 4. Out of three, one of the co-accused did not prefer any appeal before the High Court. The two co-accused, i.e., the appellant herein and one Manoj Kumar Minj preferred two Criminal Appeals before the High Court. The High Court, by impugned judgment maintained the conviction of the appellant herein for the offence under Section 458 of the IPC and dismissed the appeals. 5. The operative part of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court reads thus: "11. As regards conviction of appellant Manoj under Section 366 and 376 of IPC, it is apparent from the record that the prosecutrix accompanied accused Manoj firstly to village Gholen, then to Assam and then to Jalpaiguri (W.B.). The evidence also makes it clear that when the prosecutrix was taken by the appellant to all these places, she did not offer any resistance or made any effort to come out from his clutches. Further, the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that at the time of commission of offence the prosecutrix was minor as there is no reliable and legally admissible evidence in respect of her age. Thus, considering the conduct of prosecutrix and the evidence available on record it will not be safe for this Court to uphold the conviction of accused Manoj for the offence under Section 366 and 376 of IPC. Accordingly, his conviction under Section 366 and 376 IPC is set aside. 12. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 476/1996 being without substance is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed as such. Criminal Appeal No. 381/1996 is however partly allowed. Accordingly, his conviction under Section 366 and 376 IPC is set aside. 12. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 476/1996 being without substance is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed as such. Criminal Appeal No. 381/1996 is however partly allowed. Conviction of accused Manoj under Sections 366 and 376 IPC is set aside. However, his conviction u/s 324 and 458 IPC is maintained. Accused/appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. They be sent to jail immediately to serve out their remaining sentence." 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that we should maintain the conviction and reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. The appeal is partly allowed.7. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant herein for the offence punishable under section 458 of the IPC, we reduce the period of sentence already undergone. 8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.