ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant assails the judgment dated 08.07.2021 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, whereby his conviction under Section 370(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and consequential sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.500/- has been upheld. 3. The prosecution case is that the complainant (Vijay Kumar Ratre), PW-1, submitted a written complaint alleging that on 24.10.2014, the appellant along with his co-accused, Maniram, took the complainant and several other labourers from their village in Chhattisgarh to Uttar Pradesh under the promise of employment with good wages and facilities at a brick manufacturing work. The complainant was allegedly assured wages at the rate of Rs.475 per one thousand bricks, along with free accommodation, medical facilities, and kerosene and wood for cooking. However, upon reaching the destination, none of the promised wages or facilities were provided. When the complainant and other labourers realised the deceit, they refused to work further and requested the appellant and his co-accused to arrange for the return. However, no such assistance was provided. The complainant somehow managed to escape and lodged the subject FIR, whereupon the other bonded labourers were also rescued. 4. The further prosecution case is that the appellant, on registration of the FIR, absconded, and he was declared a proclaimed offender. The appellant, then, surrendered on 20.08.2015 before the trial court, whereafter charges were framed and trial was conducted. 5. On consideration of the evidence on record, including deposition of some of the victims, the trial court held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 370(3) of the IPC, while his co-accused, Maniram, was acquitted. The appellant, as noticed at the outset, was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-. 6. The aggrieved appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 2017 before the High Court, which has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment. The High Court has, inter-alia, observed that the complainant's version regarding taking him and other villagers to Sai Baba Bricks Factory in Uttar Pradesh and their exploitation as bonded labourers was duly corroborated by the statements of Rustam Kumar (PW-2), Santkumar (PW-4), and Phulbai (PW-5). The High Court has also noticed that though Firturam (PW-3) turned hostile, but he too has admitted the fact that the owner of the bricks factory was not paying the assured wages and not giving the requisite facilities. 7. The High Court has also noticed that though Firturam (PW-3) turned hostile, but he too has admitted the fact that the owner of the bricks factory was not paying the assured wages and not giving the requisite facilities. 7. The High Court has thus concluded as follows: 9. On a minute examination of the statements of the above witnesses, it is clear that all the witnesses remained firm in stating that the present Appellant had come to their village and induced them that they will get wages of Rs.475 for construction of per thousand bricks and will also get different free facilities and because of such inducement only they consented to go to the bricks factory. It is also established that thereafter the Appellant had taken the Complainant and other labours to Saibaba Bricks Factory, Uttar Pradesh. It is also established that the Complainant and other labours were not getting the assured wages and facilities there and, therefore, when the Complainant and other labours requested the Appellant to send them back, he did not help them. Thus, it is clearly established that the Appellant fraudulently exploited the Complainant and other labours by giving them certain inducement for the above mentioned purpose. Hence, the offence under Section 370(3) of the Indian Penal Code is duly proved against the Appellant. The Trial Court has rightly convicted him.' 8. Still aggrieved, the appellant is now before us. 9. At the outset, it is pointed out by his learned counsel that the appellant is currently in jail, though during trial, he remained on bail for some time. In this manner, the appellant has undergone actual sentence of 8 years, 2 months, and 5 days. 10. Learned counsel submits that the appellant has been convicted on the basis of oral version of the complainant and his associates, without there being any other cogent evidence to substantiate the allegations. It is also urged that on the basis of the same set of evidence, the appellant's co-accused, Maniram, was acquitted and that the ingredients of Section 370(3) of the IPC have not been duly proved against the appellant. 11. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently contends that the deposition of the victim-bonded labourers inspires confidence, and they have been found trustworthy by the trial court as well as by the High Court. 11. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently contends that the deposition of the victim-bonded labourers inspires confidence, and they have been found trustworthy by the trial court as well as by the High Court. She explains that given the situation, no other evidence could possibly be collected by the prosecution. As regard to the quantum of sentence, learned State counsel argues that since the appellant has been found involved in human trafficking and exploiting poor labourers, the courts were justified in awarding the harsh sentence. She also refers to the statements of some of the witnesses to highlight that they were physically assaulted and were inhumanly treated. 12. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 13. The trial court had the occasion to see the demeanour of the witnesses who deposed before it and found their testimony to be truthful. Such evidence has again been reapprised by the High Court. In these circumstances, we see no reason to take a different view. 14. In respect of Maniram's acquittal, the trial court has justified it with reference to the attributions made to him by the witnesses. The appellant cannot claim any parity with Maniram. Similarly, given the manner in which the occurrence took place, we are inclined to accept that no other evidence, except the statements of the victims of the crime, could have been produced by the prosecution to establish the charges. We, thus, find no error in the conviction of the appellant under Section 370(3) of the IPC. 15. Faced with this, learned counsel for the appellant highlights the mitigating circumstances, including that: (i) this is the appellant's first offence; (ii) he has already undergone over 8 years of actual sentence; and (iii) the family of the appellant is entirely dependent on him, as he is their sole bread-earner. 16. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions on this issue, it seems that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years is slightly on the higher side. The cause of administration of justice would be adequately met by reducing the sentence of the appellant, at least to the extent of incarceration he has already undergone. 17. Consequently, the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period which he has already undergone. The appeal is allowed in part to the extent above. The cause of administration of justice would be adequately met by reducing the sentence of the appellant, at least to the extent of incarceration he has already undergone. 17. Consequently, the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period which he has already undergone. The appeal is allowed in part to the extent above. The jail authorities are directed to release the appellant forthwith, provided that he is not required to be kept in custody in any other case.