Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 20.8.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Rewari dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment dated 28.4.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari, convicting the petitioner under Sections 354 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 354 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 800/- for the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the intervening night of 18/19.7.1999 when the prosecutrix was sleeping inside the room on the first floor of the house and her husband was sleeping outside the room, at about midnight, the petitioner came and caught her breasts. On raising hue and cry by the prosecutrix, the petitioner fled away. The case was registered and investigated. 3. Ultimately, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) was presented in the court. The petitioner was charge- sheeted for the aforesaid offences, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses in all. Thereafter, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied all the allegations and pleaded his innocence. The trial ended in conviction and the appeal was also dismissed. 5. At the very outset, without assailing the conviction recorded against the petitioner, Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate has sought some leniency in the quantum of sentence. He also states that the petitioner has already undergone about 2-1/2 months out of the substantive sentence. 6. Records before me transpire that the occurrence took place as far back as in the year 1999. The petitioner has already suffered lot of agony of protracted proceedings for the last more than eight years. He has already undergone about 2-1/2 months of the substantive sentence. No bad antecedents of the petitioner have been brought on record by the prosecution in order to dub him as habitual offender. 7. Consequently, this petition is dismissed with the modification that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to that already undergone by the petitioner, without alteration in the fine.