Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Since the only question involved in this Appeal is whether learned single Judge was right in reducing the sentence as imposed by the trial Court on respondent, detailed reference to the factual aspects is unnecessary.
(3.) The respondent faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short the IPC) the respondent-accused Babbu was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation. The conviction was recorded by learned Third Sessions Judge, Betul who imposed the aforesaid sentences. The respondent-accused preferred an appeal (Cri. Appeal No. 320/2003) 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 person who was the appellant 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 had undergone sentence of imprisonment for a period of about eleven months. The only ground recorded for reducing the sentence was that the accused person was an illiterate labourer aged about 20 years at the time of commission of offence. That appeared to be a just and proper ground to the learned single Judge to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone.;