Crl.A. 182/2004 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY This is an appeal filed u/s 374 CrPC, against the judgment and order dated 26.5. 04 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Sessions Case No. 45/02, w hereby the accused appellant was convicted u/s 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The facts leading to filing this appeal is that on 13.4.02 at about 1:30 PM, whe n the victim was coming from her house in a ricksaw on her way to B.Ed. College at Karimganj town, the accused/appellant followed her in a motor-cycle and restr ained her near the Election Office, Karimganj and tried to pull her out from the ricksaw in order to take her away in his motor-cycle and marry her, thereafter. Some persons who had gathered there restrained the accused, but the accused ass aulted and injured them. However, the mob rescued the girl and handed over the accused to the police. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, an FIR was file d and a police case was registered followed by launching of investigation. On completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted chargesheet against the a ccused alleging commission of offence u/s 366/511 IPC. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. The lear ned Sessions Judge, on receipt of the aforesaid case for trial, framed formal ch arges u/s 366/511 IPC, against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guil ty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses including the I.O. of the case t o establish the case. All the witnesses were cross-examined by the defence. On closing of the prosecution evidence, defence statement of the accused was also recorded. On conclusion of hearing, the learned Sessions Judge found the accuse d guilty of offence u/s 354 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant at the very outset befo re placing arguments on merit of the appeal submits that the accused may be trea ted leniently insofar as the sentence is concerned, for the reason that for last 10 years the accused is awaiting for a verdict of the Court. Learned counsel fo r the appellant further pointed out that the accused has already spent 38 days i n jail custody in connection with the case out of substantive sentence of 90 day s. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the convicti on of the appellant may be upheld but the accused may be let off with the impris onment he has already undergone in this case. Mr. BB Gogoi, learned PP submitted that keeping in view the facts and circumstan ces leading to the incident and the delay that has entailed, it is upto this cou rt to consider and decide the extent of exoneration to the accused/appellant. In view of above, considering the matter in its entirety, and also keeping in vi ew the incarceration undergone by the appellant out of the substantive sentence imposed by the court below, further looking into the fact that the occurrence re lates to an incident of 13.4.2002, I uphold the conviction of the accused u/s 35 4 IPC, however, reduce the sentence to the period of imprisonment he had already undergone. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Sessions Case No. 45/02, in terms of the a bove observation and direction. Bail bond furnished on behalf of the accused ac cordingly stands discharged. Send back the LCR.