Judgment : This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 24-4-2006 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, in S.C.No. 199 of 2005. 2. The appellant was tried by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad for the offence under section 354 of IPC After completing the trial of the case and on hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State, the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant for the offence under section 354 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for five years. 3. The appellant who was undergoing jail sentence in connection with this case, sent an application to the Secretary, A.P. Legal Services Authority, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapalli, requesting to file an appeal on his behalf, as he had no means to prefer an appeal. The A.P. State Legal Services Authority appointed legal aid counsel Sri Pallagura Jaya Rao on his behalf to defend him. 4. Today, when the matter is called the legal aid counsel who is representing the appellant is not present. This Court considering this being an old criminal appeal, any further delay in disposal of the case will result in miscarriage of justice, decided to dispose of the criminal appeal on merits on hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 5. I have perused the entire record including the depositions of the witnesses and heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 6. The brief facts, which are necessary for considering the present criminal appeal, may be stated as follows : The victim girl, who is the daughter of PW-4 was aged about 4 years on the date of incident. PW-4 is her father. The appellant as well as PWs 1 to 4 were residing in huts near Gundlapochampally Railway Station. On the date of incident, i.e., 06-04-2005 PW4 the father of victim girl went to cooli work in the morning, the appellant, who was a married person, took the victim girl to his hut. PWs 1 to 3 were residing in the huts near the hut of the appellant, on 06-04-2005 at about 04:00 p.m., they heard the cries of the girl from the hut of the appellant, Om Prakash. PWs 1 to 3 were residing in the huts near the hut of the appellant, on 06-04-2005 at about 04:00 p.m., they heard the cries of the girl from the hut of the appellant, Om Prakash. Immediately they rushed to the hut of the appellant and entered inside the hut, found the victim girl lying on the ground with frock lifted, the appellant was lying on her with his pant zip opened pressing her body and kissing. They caught the appellant and beat him. Further the appellant himself got released from their custody and went away. PW-4 Chandra Bhanu Singh, the father of the victim girl came late in the evening and was informed by PWs 1 to 3 about the incident. On the next day, he took the victim girl to a doctor on 08-4-2005 at 11:00 hours, he took the victim girl to Medchal Police Station and lodged a report with the police. Basing on his report, a case in Crime No. 85 of 2005 for the offence under section 354 of IPC was registered and investigated into. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the appellant. 7. In the course of trial before the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellant examined PWs 1 to 4 and marked Exs.P1 to P3. 8. The learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge after thoroughly considering the evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the offence under section 354 IPC and sentenced him to punishment as mentioned hereinabove. 9. Now the point for determination is as to whether the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant can be sustained. 10. PWs 1 to 3 are the independent witnesses. Absolutely, no material was brought on record by the appellant to show that they had any sort of enmity with him. A suggestion was put to the witnesses in the cross-examination that some how they wanted to send the appellant away from the hut near Gundlapochampally Railway Station, they created a false story and implicated the appellant in this case. But the learned trial Court recorded a finding that PW-4 stated in his deposition that after the incident he vacated the hut and shifted to some other place. But the learned trial Court recorded a finding that PW-4 stated in his deposition that after the incident he vacated the hut and shifted to some other place. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly held that the theory that PWs 1 to 4 were contemplating to send the appellant away from the hut has no substance. 11. PWs 1 to 3 have categorically stated in their depositions before the trial Court about their seeing the victim girl lying on the ground, her frock was lifted and the appellant with his pant zip opened, pressing the body of the victim girl and kissing her. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3, who are the neighbours of the appellant is quite natural and it does not suffer from any infirmity. As already said, absolutely they had no enmity with the appellant and there is nothing on record to show that they resorted to implicate the appellant in a false charge of outraging the modesty of minor girl of four years. PW-4 being the father of the victim girl would never resort to file a case of this nature unless the incident was true. 12. It was argued before the learned trial Court that there was a delay of about one day in lodging the FIR and the same is fatal to the case of prosecution. 13. As to this, it may be stated that the learned trial Court after carefully scrutinizing the evidence, as to the factum of delay arrived at the conclusion that the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is free from infirmity and is truthful. When there is no motive for PWs 1 to 4 to falsely implicate the appellant, the delay in my opinion is inconsequential. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly arrived at a decision that the prosecution has proved that the appellant committed the offence punishable under section 354 of IPC against the victim girl. 14. The appellant stated before the trial Court that as two children aged about ten years and one year respectively are depending on him he may be let off but the trial Court sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years. Since the date of passing of the judgment by the trial Court i.e., from 24-04-2006 the appellant has been languishing in jail, the appellant is a labourer and there is no previous criminal record. Since the date of passing of the judgment by the trial Court i.e., from 24-04-2006 the appellant has been languishing in jail, the appellant is a labourer and there is no previous criminal record. The appellant was aged about 35 years on the date of incident. Considering the antecedents of the appellant and the nature of offence committed by him and also in view of the fact that the evidence of the victim girl is not before the Court, I am of the view that the sentence passed against the appellant having regard to the provisions of section 354 of IPC enables this Court to impose punishment, which is less than five years and shall not be less than two years which this Court thinks appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court against the appellant for the offence under section 354 of IPC is confirmed. The sentence of imprisonment passed by the trial Court is reduced to two years. 16. With the reduction in the sentence, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. It seems that the appellant might have already served two years of sentence. If it is so, he shall be released forth with in connection with this case, if he is not required in any other case. 17. Subject to the modification in the sentence, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.