- (1.)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 respon dents-accused preferred an appeal (Cri. 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 the learned counsel for the accused persons who were the appellants before the high Court did not challenge the finding of conviction but only prayed for reduction in sentence. The High Court noticed that respondent-accused munna had undergone sentence of imprisonment for a period of about three years and six months, while respondent-accused ghanshyam had undergone sentence of imprisonment for a period of about two months. The only ground recorded for reducing the sentence was that the accused persons come from rural areas. That appeared to be a just and proper ground to the learned Single judge to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone.