1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :: J U D G M E N T :: S.B. CRIMINAL JAIL APPEAL NO.781/2005 (Kallu Vs. State of Rajasthan) S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.09.2005 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK), BANSWARA IN SESSIONS CASE NO.52/2005. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 18th July, 2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI Mr. K.R. Bhati, Amicus Curiae, for the appellant. Mr. Vishnu Kachhawaha, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment 14.09.2005 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Banswara, whereby, he convicted accused appellant Kallu for offence under Section 363 IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years' simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, 2. in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. Accused appellant was also convicted for offence under Section 376/511 IPC and was sentenced to five years' simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The charge against the accused appellant was that on 6.4.2005 at about 4 pm, he kidnapped Mst. Sharda, aged 11 years from the house of her natural guardian. The accused denied the charge and pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He led no defence. 3. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused appellant as indicated above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant does not want to argue this appeal on merits. He submits that accused appellant is a young boy of 28 years and he has to run his family and there is no one to look after his family members, therefore, he should be sentenced to the period already undergone, which is more than three years. According to the learned counsel, because of 3. poverty, the accused appellant is unable to the file bail bonds, despite suspension of sentence by this Court on 1.5.2007. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the customs prevailing in the tribal area, it will be in the interest of justice, if the accused appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone. 6. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of accused appellant Kallu for offence under Sections 363 and 376/511 IPC, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. He is in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. However, the order of fine shall remain intact. In default of payment of fine, he will serve out the sentence, which is in lieu of the fine. (DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J. ms rathore