IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 500 of 2001 Balloo. …..…..Revisionist. Versus State of Uttarakhand. …….Respondents. Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the revisionist. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent no. 1. Present revision has been filed under section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment and order dated 19.06.1992 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun convicting the accused revisionist under 354 IPC and sentencing him to undergo six months simple imprisonment as well as judgment and order dated 01.02.1993 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun whereby the appeal of the accused revisionist against the aforesaid judgment of Judicial Magistrate has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.11.1988 at about 7.30 a.m. when Smt. Naziran was coming back to her house after filling the water, the accused revisionist grasped from her back and made attempt to assault her sexually. She raised the alarm and unsuccessfully tried free herself. Thereafter, she thrown the vessel full of water on accused / revisionist. On this accused / revisionist started beating her. Meanwhile Rahmat and Anwar came 2 at the place of occurrence and on seeing them the revisionist fled from the spot. The report of this incident was subsequently lodged by her husband Syeed. Case was registered against accused / revisionist. Police took up investigation and after completing the investigation ultimately chargesheet was filed against the revisionist. After considering the submission learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials available on record learned Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun convicted the accused revisionist vide his judgment and order dated 19.06.1992 as discussed above. Appeal of the accused revisionist against the aforesaid judgment and order was dismissed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun. Hence, this Revision. Learned counsel for the accused revisionist stated that there is enmity between the parties and due to this accused / revisionist has falsely been implicated in the case. He further submitted that accused revisionist is aged about 43 years having the responsibility of his entire family. He is living peacefully and no other case except this incident has ever been reported against him. He is a poor man. Mr. R.P. Natiyal appearing for the revisionist further contended that u/s 354 I.P.C. only fine can also be imposed and imprisonment for a term of 2 years should be imposed only if gravity of offence so require. According to Mr. Notiyal, accused should have been released by the trial court on probation since at the time of occurrence he was young boy of 22 years. Now accused is about 43 years and no useful purpose would be served by 3 sending him to jail to undergo imprisonment for the period awarded by the Courts below. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State submitted that release on probation would not be proper rather sentence for the period he remained in custody would be proper. I have perused the record. Incident is of 24.11.88. Almost 21 years have passed. Revisionist is not habitual offender. Now leading normal life. Learned counsel appearing for the State himself submitted that in the fact and circumstances of the case, sentence can be reduced for the period the accused remained in the custody. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the accused / revisionist and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of six months simple imprisonment is reduced for the period the accused revisionist had already undergone. Fine of Rs. 1000/- should also be directed to be paid by the revisionist. Accordingly, the revision is allowed in part. Conviction of the accused revisionist is upheld. Sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment is modified and the same is reduced to the period already undergone along with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Amount of Rs. 1000/- shall be deposited by the accused revisionist within four weeks from today in the trial court failing which he shall also undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. (Alok Singh, J.) 04.12.2009 SKS