ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel on both sides.

3. It is rather curious that the learned Judge while confirming the conviction of the three respondents, viz., Ram Narain, Bajrang Lal and Manja Ram, for offences under Sections 376, 366 and 342, Indian Penal Code ("IPC", for short) in respect of Ram Narain and under Sections 366 and 342, IPC in respect of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, reduced their sentence to the period already undergone, viz., one and a half months. Notice was issued by this Court against the reduction of the sentence by the High Court.

4. The facts are that on August 14, 1983 when victim Anoop Devi aged between 15 and 17 years was coming from the house of her uncle to her parents house, these accused enticed her to believe that all the women-folk had assembled at the outskirts of the village to go to Circus and induced her to accompany them. Innocently believing their statement, she accompanied them to the outskirts but did not find women-folk there. She was taken at knife point to another village by name Siroha and from there to Jaipur in a truck. In Jaipur, she was wrongfully confined in a house. From Jaipur, she was taken to Murtipura where first accused-respondent had sexual intercourse with her. She was wrongfully confined in that house. From there she was brought back to her village and was confined in the house of the first accused. On coming to know of it, the father of the victim (PW 3) made a complaint to the police and the police recovered her from the house of the first accused.

5. At the trial, five witnesses, viz., the victim (PW 1), her mother and father (PWs 2 and 3) and neighbours (PWs 4 and 5) were examined. The Sessions Judge after appreciating the evidence and believing the evidence of PW 1, the victim, her mother and father (PWs 2 and 3) and neighbours (PWs 4 and 5), convicted the first accused for offence under Sections 376, 366 and 342 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for seven years, five years and one year respectively and also imposed fine of Rs. 200/-. Equally, the second and third accused were convicted under Sections 366 and 342, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and one year respectively. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused-respondents carried the matter in appeal and the learned Judge had held that the evidence on record was sufficient to prove that the prosecution has established its case without any room for doubt. However, he reduced the sentence and allowed the appeal. He observed that the age of first accused, viz., 18 years, and the sentence of one and a half months which he had already undergone, would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the learned Judge held that justice would be met in case the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by them.

6. Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that looking at the evidence of the victim herself, the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence. She is a consenting party and without independent corroboration, her evidence would be suspect and could not be relied upon. The offence had taken place on April 14, 1983 and the report was lodged by the father of the victim on May 13, 1983, i.e., one month after the incident. It is unlikely that had she not been the consenting party, report would have been lodged immediately after abduction. PW 3 having allowed the daughter to remain in the company of the first accused for one month and parents having taken no action, the conduct would indicate against the prosecution and that the respondents had no intention to commit any offence and the victim (PW 1) is a consenting party. We fail to appreciate the stand of the victim which is proved from the evidence of the doctor (PW 5) that she is minor aged between 15 and 17 years. She is in innocent village girl. From her evidence, we find intrinsic truth, and her to be