Narendra Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The matter has come up for orders on second application for suspension of sentence, but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is not pressing second application for suspension of sentence as well as order of conviction of the appellant passed by the trial court, in view of overwhelming prosecution evidence available against the appellant, including statement of prosecutrix, P.W. 6 Pinky; father of prosecutrix, P.W. 10 Mangi Lal; P.W. 8 Dr. Arun Sharma; P.W. 7 Dr. G.S. Vishnar; P.W. 9 Kalulal, Investigating Officer; Exhibit P-10, medical report of the prosecutrix, and his only prayer is that appeal itself may be heard finally, as the appellant has already undergone sentence of imprisonment of more than 6 years and 3 months and sentence of imprisonment of the appellant awarded by the trial court under Section 376(1) IPC may be reduced from 10 years' rigorous imprisonment to minimum sentence of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment, as prescribed under Section 376(1) IPC.
(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor, in view of the fact that the appellant is not challenging his order of conviction, has not seriously opposed prayer of learned counsel for the appellant for hearing the appeal finally and reducing the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant.;