Cr. Appeal No.246/2011 14.12.2011 Shri Ritesh Inani, counsel for the appellant. Shri Raghvendra Singh Bais, Panel Adv. for the respondent-State. Arguments heard. Judgement dictated in open Court in presence of counsel appearing for the parties. JUDGEMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8.2.2011 passed by Special Judge, S.C.S.T., Dewas in Special Case No.87/2010. By the impugned judgment, appellant has been found guilty of an offence punishable u/s. 354 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo 2 years R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation. 1 2. The charge against the appellant was that on 11.6.2010, he caught hold of the prosecutrix – a member of scheduled caste, with an intention to outrage her modesty. The incident was reported in the Police Station Sonkachh and after completing the investigation, charge- sheet was filed. Appellant denied the charges and claimed that he was falsely implicated. 3. Considering the prosecution evidence, learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty of an offence punishable u/s. 354 of the Penal Code and sentenced him, as aforesaid. Appellant was acquitted of the charges framed u/s. 506(2) of I.P.C. and 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The fine amount of Rs.10,000/- was directed 2 to be paid to the prosecutrix subject to outcome of the appeal. Hence, this appeal. 4. The only contention urged is regarding quantum of sentence awarded to appellant. Counsel for the appellant submitted that after the jail sentence was suspended by this Court, appellant is leading a peaceful life. It is submitted that during pendency of this appeal, matter has been compromised between the appellant and the complainant. The compromise petition has also been filed with a prayer to compound the offence. It is submitted that the jail sentence already undergone by the appellant would meet the ends of justice, hence he should be let off with the aforesaid reduced sentence. 3 5. We have heard counsel for the parties. We find that the incident took place on 11.6.2010. Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. was amended by Act NO.5 of 2009 w.e.f. 31.12.2009 and a new table has been substituted. Under the new table, an offence punishable u/s. 354 is excluded, as a result, it has become a non- compoundable offence. In view of the aforesaid, compromise petition for compounding the offence cannot be entertained, therefore, it is rejected. 6. However, considering the fact that appellant has remained in Jail for almost 20 days, therefore, taking the compromise only as a mitigating circumstance, we reduce the substantive jail sentence to the period already undergone. The direction regarding fine amount and default stipulation shall remain intact. 4 The fine amount, if deposited by the appellant, be paid to the prosecutrix subject to due verification. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds, if fine amount deposited, shall stand discharged. Order accordingly. (S.K. SETH, J.) Alok/ 5