Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.

2. Since the only question involved in this Appeal is whether learned Single Judge was right in reducing the respective sentence as imposed on each of the respondents, detailed reference to the factual aspects is unnecessary.

3. The respondents faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 450, 376(1)/109(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) The respondent-accused Munna was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation for the offence relatable to Section 376(1). He was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment of five years for the offence punishable under Section 450 IPC. Respondent-accused Ghanshyam was similarly sentenced. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The conviction was ­recorded by learned Session Judge Chhatarpur, who imposed the aforesaid sentences. The respondents-accused preferred an appeal (Crl. Appeal No. 829/2000) in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. By the impugned judgment, the High Court directed the sentence to be reduced to the period already undergone. It noted that