Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11355 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1011 of 2011 Appellant :- Pinkau @ Vijai Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Surya Kumar,Mata Prasad Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate and Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1026 of 2011 Appellant :- Munsrif And Anr. Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary,Mata Prasad Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 2. The present criminal appeals u/s 374(2) Cr.P.C. have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.05.2011 passed by Upper Session Judge, Room No.1, Balrampur in Session Trial No.123/2009, arising out of Crime No.186 of 2009, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(Cha) I.P.C., Police Station Harriya, District Balrampur by which appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section under Section 363 I.P.C. for a period of five years rigorous imprisonment with fine Rs.5000/- each and in case of default of payment of fines three months additional simple imprisonment. 3. Facts in brief are that on 21/22.07.2009 in the mid-night the victim aged about 15 years was enticed away by the appellants with intention to marry her or to commit intercourse. The accused persons committed rape with the victim in Mumbai. The F.I.R. was lodged by the mother of the victim at the police station as Crime No.186 of 2009, under Sections 363 & 366 I.P.C. 4. After investigation charge sheet was filed by the I.O. against the appellants on the basis of police report the court concerned took cognizance and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., case was committed for trial. 5. Learned trial court framed the charges u/s 363, 366, 376 (2) (Cha) I.P.C. against the appellants with other co-accused persons which was read over and explained to the accused person but they denied and claimed for trial. The present appellants with other co-accused persons were acquitted of the remaining charges. 6. The prosecution examined P.W. 1, Smt. Shushila Devi; P.W. 2, the victim; P.W. 3, Dr. C. K. Kapoor; P.W. 4, S.I. Pramod Pal Singh; P.W. 5, S.I. Rajkishor Yadav; P.W. 6, Archna Gupta. 7. After conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the prosecution version and adduced D.W.1 Ram Niwas Yadav & D.W.2 Raghupati in defence. 8. After hearing the arguments for the prosecution as well as the defence, the impugned judgment and order was passed by the learned trial court in which the appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 363 I.P.C. 9. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order present appeal has been preferred. 10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that they are innocent and had committed no offence but they have falsely been implicated in this case. Without going into the merit of the case, he further submitted that the incident took place in the year 2009 and till now 15 years have elapsed. They have already remained in jail during trial and after conviction, therefore, no purpose will be served by sending them to jail. There is no any subsequent conduct of the appellants that they had committed similar offence, therefore, request to reduce the sentence as undergone. 11. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid. 12. In the case of Neelam Bahal and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand 2010 (2) SCC 229 where conviction and sentence of appellant under Section 307 IPC was converted into Section 326 IPC simplicitor. Incident took place in the year 1987 and appellant was about 25 years old. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble the Apex Court, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by him. 13. On considering the facts and submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and from perusal of record, it appears that the appellants were convicted and sentenced u/s 363 I.P.C. with five years rigorous imprisonment with fine Rs.5000/-. As per the custody certificate of appellant Pinkau @ Vijai Kumar dated 13.09.2024, he remained in jail as under trial for a period of 4 months and 5 days and after conviction for a period of 5 months and 29 days, in total 10 months and 4 days. As per the custody certificate dated 07.08.2024 appellant Munsrif remained in jail as under trial for a period of 2 months & 7 days and after conviction 5 months & 30 days, in total 8 months & 7 days. Appellant Kuzzu @ Sirazuddin remain in jail as under trial for a period of 1 year, 9 months & 15 days and after conviction 5 months & 30 days, in total 2 years, three and a half months. Since then more than 15 years have elapsed and now sending the appellants to jail no better purpose will be served. 14. To sum up the totality of case, in view of the aforesaid observation made by the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that no purpose will be served by sending the appellants to jail but it will be adequate to reduce the sentence as undergone by them. 15. Accordingly, both these appeals are partly allowed and the sentence awarded against the appellants Pinkau @ Vijai Kumar, Munsrif & Kuzzu @ Sirazuddin is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them. 16. The appellants are on bail so they need not surrender, therefore, their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. 17. Copy of this judgment alongwith original record of trial court be transmitted to the court concerned for necessary compliance. A compliance report be sent to this Court within one month. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Ashok Gupta Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench