S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against an order dated 20/12/1984 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Burhampur, District. Khandwa in Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 1983. Learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment upheld on petitioner's conviction under Section 354 Indian Penal Code and sentence of six months and fine of Rs. 300/- in default two months S. I. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case briefly stated is that in the morning of 30/8/1980 Sakina Bi (P. W. 1) had gone to take milk. When she was returning, the accused passed some remark about her. He further caught hold of her hand and embraced her. Sakina Bi had shouted. Gameer (P. W. 2), Basheer (P. W. 3) and Mannankhan (P. W. 4) came there and rescued Sakina Bi. The accused then went inside his house. ( 3 ) SAKINA Bi along with her husband went to the police station and lodged the First Information Report Ex. P-I on the same day at about 10. 30 a. m. This report was recorded by Sub-Inspector Solanki (P. W. 5 ). ( 4 ) THE petitioner denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. He examined Chhotekhan (D. W. 1) in defence. His version was that about three years before some quarrel had taken place between Sakina Bi and the accused in which Sakina had abused the accused. He had intervened in that quarrel. According to him the accused had not in any manner misbehaved with Sakina Bi. ( 5 ) SAKINA Bi in her evidence stated that ignoring the remark made by the accused she proceeded ahead. The accused came running and caught hold of her hair. He had caught hold of her breast. On her shouting Basheer, Gameer and Mannankhan had come, who rescued her. In cross- examination she admitted that there is only a wall in between her house and the house of the accused. She denied the suggestion about her being related to the accused. Gameer (P. W. 2) had seen the accused having caught hold of Sakina Bi and having embraced her. Basheer (P. W. 3) on hearing the shouts had rushed and saw the accused holding the hair of Sakina Bi and in an embracing position. He had also named other persons including Gameer and Mannankhan, who had come there and had rescued Sakina Bi. Basheer (P. W. 3) on hearing the shouts had rushed and saw the accused holding the hair of Sakina Bi and in an embracing position. He had also named other persons including Gameer and Mannankhan, who had come there and had rescued Sakina Bi. Similar is the version of Mannankhan (P. W. 4 ). ( 6 ) DURING the cross-examination of these witnesses suggestions were made to indicate that because of the quarrel the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is in support of those suggestions that Chhotekhan (P. W. 1) was examined in defence. The two courts below have accepted the evidence of Sakina Bi, Gameer (P. W. 2), Basheer (P. W. 3) and Mannankhan (P. W. 4 ). The statement of Sakina Bi stands fully corroborated by the First Information Report Ex. P-1 which was lodged soon after the incident. The other witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution have also been named in that report. In the circumstances it does not at all stand to reason that Sakina Bi would make such allegation merely to falsely implicate more so when no such circumstances have been made out which could persuade her to stake her reputation. The defence of the petitioner has been rejected by the Court below. The evidence proved beyond doubt the offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. ( 7 ) IN view of this overwhelming evidence learned counsel for the petitioner did not and in my opinion rightly challenge the conviction of the petitioner under Section 354 Indian Penal Code. His only submission, however, was that the sentence of six months R. I. is slightly excessive. ( 8 ) THE record of the court below indicates that the petitioner on rejection of his appeal by the court below on 20/12/1984 was taken in custody and was sent to jail to undergo the sentence. In this revision the petitioner was not released on bail. Fine of Rs. 300/- has also been imposed on him. Sentence of two months simple imprisonment, has also been imposed on him in default of payment of fine has also been provided. It also was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a poor labourer and has members of his family to be maintained by him. In my opinion, therefore in the circumstances the sentence of imprisonment deserves to be slightly reduced. It also was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a poor labourer and has members of his family to be maintained by him. In my opinion, therefore in the circumstances the sentence of imprisonment deserves to be slightly reduced. ( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner under Section 354 Indian Penal Code is maintained. However, the sentence of six months R. I. is reduced to sentence of 4 (four) months rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine of Rs. 300/- (Rs. Three hundred) in default simple imprisonment for two months is maintained. Revision party allowed. .