JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. Heard Parambir Singh Bajaj, learned Amicus Curiae as well as Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. Instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.12.2005 & 24.12.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila in S.T. Case No. 304 of 2001 whereby and where under the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years under Section 366 of the I.P.C. and seven years R.I. for seven years and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as depicted in the F.I.R. is that on 14.11.2000 at about 08:00 P.M., informant’s daughter aged about 13 years, had gone to attend the nature’s call near the pond and become traceless. In spite of search by the informant, he could not found his daughter. On 15.11.2000, the informant came to know that the present appellant was also absconding since last night and upon inquiry, he got information that the appellant had kidnapped his minor daughter and committed rape with her on false pretext of marriage. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Baharagora P.S. Case No.78/2000 was instituted under Section 366A and 376/34 of the I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused/appellant for the aforesaid offence and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to court of Sessions. The trial proceeded for the charge under Sections 366A/34 and 376 of the I.P.C. and after conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment and order was passed. 5. Assailing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merits of the case has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant. It is submitted that seven years R.I. has been awarded for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. out of which the appellant has beenalready served 5 years 6 months during trial of the case. And for the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. petitioner has awarded five years imprisonment and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The petitioner has already sustained the agony of trial for more than two decades and has been adequately punished for his guilt. And for the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. petitioner has awarded five years imprisonment and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The petitioner has already sustained the agony of trial for more than two decades and has been adequately punished for his guilt. Hence, this appeal may be dismissed with modification in sentence to the imprisonment already undergone. 6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has defended the impugned judgment and order on merits and refuted the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, as well as opposed from interference in the matter of quantum of sentence also. 7. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side. 8. Since the learned counsel for the appellant has confined his argument on the point of quantum of sentence without touching merits of judgment. Hence, his conviction under Section 366 and 376 of the I.P.C. is upheld. 9. So far the sentence awarded to the appellant is concerned, it transpires that the appellant has also remained in custody during trial of the case more than 5 years 6 months. Hence, he has already served the sentence awarded for the offence under Section 366A of the I.P.C. However, considering the offence committed by the appellant and the circumstances under which the same was committed and also in view of the fact that more than two decades has been lapsed from the date of alleged commission of offence, I am of the firm view that imprisonment already undergone by the appellant is sufficient punishment to meet the ends of justice in this case. Therefore, punishment for the offence under Section 376/366 of the I.P.C. is also reduced to imprisonment already undergone. 10. In view of the above, this appeal dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 11. Considering the proper assistance of learned Amicus Curiae in disposal of this case, we direct the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee to pay remuneration of Rs.2,500/- to Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, the learned Amicus Curiae. 12. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. 13. Pending I.As, if any stands disposed of.