JUDGEMENT B.N.P. SINGH, J. - The criminal revision is against concurrent findings of the trial court and also the lower appellate court, as findings of guilt recorded by the trial court against the petitioners under sections 341 and 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) sentencing them to undergo a term of six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-each, were affirmed by the lower appellate court too. 2. Factual matrix are that Kumari Rumana Tabassum (P.W.4), a minor girl aged about 14 years, while going to attend school, was intercepted by the petitioners and other, when they behaved with her indecently, obviously with an object to kidnap her. However, explicit accusations about outraging her modesty was against one Azhar and petitioner Karamat Hussain, who having caught hold of her, make abortive bid to kiss her. The accusation against rest was that they too were standing there. It was on behest of prosecutrix that a Police case had been registered and investigation commenced. The Police, however, on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet only against Md. Azhar, Md. Murshid, Md. Karamat Hussain, and Md. Maqsood leaving Md. Iqbal, Md. lliyas and Md. Qutubdin , who were not sent up for trial. In trial that commenced the State examined altogether four witnesses, including the prosecutrix, her brother and other two witnesses, who claimed to be ocular witnesses to the incident about the petitioners intercepting Rumana Tabassum while she was on way to her school and making attempt to outrage her modesty. At the outset, I may mention that Md. Azhar was not tried, as he was found to be juvenile. 3. The trial court, however, on appreciation of evidence, negativing contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners about their false implication, due to dispute with regard to a matter of construction of mosque, recorded finding of guilt and sentenced them in the manner stated above. The appellate court too confirmed the finding which is impugned in this revision. When this revision came for admission, it was admitted for hearing only on the point of sentence and ex facie, no scope for appraisal of evidence has been left. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to highlight certain contradictions in the statement of the witnesses, non-examination of the Investigating Officer and also custody of the petitioners, which they had undergone during the period of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to highlight certain contradictions in the statement of the witnesses, non-examination of the Investigating Officer and also custody of the petitioners, which they had undergone during the period of trial. Though petitioner no.1 Md. Maqsood and petitioner no.2 Murshid too suffered conviction with aid of Section 34 IPC under Section 354 IPC, if the earliest version of the prosecutrix was to be given consideration, admittedly no explicit accusation about outraging modesty of the prosecutrix was attributed to them, though it was sought to be developed at trial not only by prosecutrix but also by other witnesses. 5. Be that as it may, regard being had to the evidences on the record for which there have been concurrent findings of both the courts below and also taking Into consideration that both petitioner nos.1 and 2 have remained in custody for about 50 days, while upholding the finding of guilt, they are sentenced to the period already undergo by them. However, the fine so imposed by the trial court, shall be payable by them and, in default, awarded sentence of imprisonment would befall on them. 6. So far as case of petitioner no. 3 Karamat Hussain was concerned, right from the earliest version of the prosecutrix to the evidence led at trial, he was suggested to be one of those who had caught hold of the prosecutrix with object of outraging her modesty. It is brought to my notice that he too suffered custody for three and half months. However, regard being had to the nature of accusation attributed to him, finding of guilt and also the sentence awarded to him is confirmed. With above modification in the sentence with regard to petitioner nos.1 and 2, this application is accordingly dismissed.