The court may consider the appellant's time served, conduct, and lack of involvement in other criminal cases during the appeal period as grounds for modifying the sentence.

S.P.Garg, J.

1. The appellant- Vijay Singh @ Darona has filed the present appeal against the judgment and order on sentence dated 22.01.2001 in Sessions Case No.177/1996 arising out of FIR No.435/1992 PS Sultanpuri by which he and his associates Siri Kishana @ Krishan and Tara Devi were held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 368/376 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo RI for five years under Section 368/34 IPC and RI for seven years with fine Rs. 250/- under Section 376 IPC.

2. Allegations against the accused were that on 10.09.1992, co-accused Hira Lal kidnapped prosecutrix ‘X’ (assumed name), aged 12 years. The police came into motion when Daily Diary (DD) No.11B was recorded on the statement of Daya Ram. He informed the police that on 10.09.1992, he went to his village leaving behind his wife- Rama Devi and his children including ‘X’. When he returned on 16.09.1992, he came to know that some persons living with a lady in the house of Hira Lal had kidnapped or abducted ‘X’. First Information Report was lodged. During investigation, it came to the notice of the Investigating Officer that on 10.09.1992, Krishan with his wife came to accused Hira Lal R/o B-230, Aman Vihar. He allowed them to stay in the house of Ram Chander. Investigating Officer further came to know that ‘X’ being a neighbourer used to visit the house. On 14.09.1992, Siri Krishna and his wife on the directions of Hira Lal and Ram Chander Chouhan abducted the girl with intention to sell her. The girl was not traceable. Police party went to the village of Hira Lal. During investigation, it came to their notice that on 13.10.1992 Siri Krishna and his wife Tara Devi were arrested in Calcutta. They were brought to Delhi. In the disclosure statement, Siri Krishna it revealed that he had sold ‘X’ to Vijay Singh, the present appellant. On this, the girl was recovered from the house of Ram Chander Chouhan. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused and his associates. The accused was duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses to prove the charges. In his 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused pleaded false implication. They did not lead any evidence in defence. On appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment held the appellant guilty for offences punishable under Sections 368/376 IPC and sentenced. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the appeal.

3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant on his instructions stated that the appellant has opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction. She, however, prayed to modify the order on sentence and reduce the substantive sentence awarded to him.

4. I have considered the submissions of the parties and have examined the record. Since the appellant has not opted to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Section 368/376 IPC, the order of conviction of the Trial Court stands affirmed.

5. Regarding order on sentence, it reveals that the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine Rs. 250/-. The fine has since been deposited. Nominal roll dated 14.01.2010 reveals that the appellant has remained in custody in this case for a total period of six years and sixteen days till 31.10.2001. He earned remission for two months and ten days. He was admitted to regular bail on 31.10.2001. The unexpired portion of the sentence is now nine months and four days. The incident pertains to the year 1992. The appellant has faced trial for about twenty years. He is on regular bail after the appeal was admitted since 31.10.2001. He has already undergone the substantial period of sentence which is more than six years. No useful purpose will served not to send him to jail to serve remainder of sentence after allowing him to