JUDGMENT By Court:- Heard Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.06.2006 and order of sentence dated 19.06.2006 passed by learned XVIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 589 of 2003, arising out of Doranda P.S. Case No. 60/2003, whereby and where under the appellant has been held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 366A and 447 of the Indian Penal code read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 366-A of I.P.C. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years along with fine of Rs.1000/-for the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months for the offences under Section 447 of the I.P.C. with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently. Factual Matrix 3. As per F.I.R. daughter and niece of the informant had gone to the house of their uncle situated at Doranda for attending the Matriculation Examination. At the midnight of 22/23.02.2003 at about 02:00 AM, both the minor girls became traceless and on search by the family members they were unable to find them. It is further alleged that Raju Machhwa @ Chhota Raju and Madan Machhwa (present appellant) were also found absent from their houses. Therefore, suspicion towards them arose that they have kidnapped the girls on inducement. 4. On the basis of written report submitted by the informant, the police instituted Doranda P.S. Case No. 60/2003, dated 25.02.2003 under Sections 366, 447, 366A/34 of the I.P.C. against three persons including the present appellant and after investigation, the police submitted two charge-sheets, one against the present appellant and a supplementary charge-sheet against co-accused person (Chota Raju @ Raju Machhwa). 5. After taking cognizance of the offence, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and disposal. 6. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment has been passed. 7. 5. After taking cognizance of the offence, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and disposal. 6. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment has been passed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant has been convicted and sentenced both for offence under Sections 366 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, although the ingredients of Section 366-A of the I.P.C. has not been established by the prosecution and it is the evidence of the victim girl against the present appellant that he abducted on the point of knife and established sexual intercourse for four consecutive months. Therefore, conviction for the offence under Section 366-A of the I.P.C. is absolutely not warranted under law and liable to be set aside. 8. So far conviction of the present appellant for the offence under Sections 366 and 447 of the I.P.C. is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant, without touching merits of the judgment, has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant. It is submitted that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant at is R.I. of seven years for the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. and the appellant has already undergone sentence, during pendency of the trial and this appeal, for about 03 years 09 months and has sufficiently been punished for the offence committed by him. The appellant has not been found guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. Therefore, establishment of sexual intercourse with the victim has not been substantially proved. It is simple case of abduction of minor girls for the purpose of having illicit relationship. Appellant was aged about 20-23 years old at the time of alleged occurrence having no criminal antecedent and has also maintained his character and decency up till now. Therefore, instead of awarding the substantive sentence as inflicted by the learned trial court, appellant may be sentenced to the imprisonment already undergone. 9. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the aforesaid argument, but has laid no basis for such opposition. 10. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court. 9. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the aforesaid argument, but has laid no basis for such opposition. 10. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court. It appears that the learned trial court on the basis of availability of direct and circumstantial evidence showing involvement in the offence charged, held the appellant guilty and sentenced accordingly. But the conviction of appellant simultaneously for offence under Sections 366 and 366-A of I.P.C. is not justified under law. Therefore, conviction and sentence for offence under Section 366-A of the I.P.C. of the appellant is set aside. Therefore, on merits, no interference in order of conviction of appellant for rest offences under Sections 366 and 447 of the I.P.C.is required, which is hereby upheld. So far quantum of sentence is concerned, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that it was first offence of appellant. He was only 20-22 years old on the date of occurrence, having no criminal background. Hence, sentence awarded to the appellant is to be reduced and appellant may be punished with imprisonment already undergone. It is further submitted that during the course of trial and pendency of this appeal, the appellant has already undergone the custody for 03 years 08 months and 23 days. 11. In the background of aforementioned circumstances, the nature of offence committed by the appellant, the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant during trial of the case appears to be sufficient punishment. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence passed by the learned trial court to the extent that instead of undergoing rigorous imprisonment of seven years for the offence under Section 366 of the I.P.C. appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone by him. 12. Appellant is in custody, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 13. Pending I.As, if any stand disposed of. 14. Let a copy of this order along with trial court record be sent to the concerned court forthwith for information and needful.