JUDGMENT 1. - The accused appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.05.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Banswara, whereby the learned Judge has convicted the accused for offences under Sections 451, 354 IPC. For the former offence, he has been sentenced to two years of simple imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and further directed to undergo one month of simple imprisonment in default thereof. For the latter offence, the appellant has been sentenced to two years of simple imprisonment, imposed with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and further directed to undergo one month of simple imprisonment in default thereof. 2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 03.11.2006, Smt. Sugana (P.W.1) filed a report (Ex.P/1) before the police wherein she claimed that at night, she was sleeping with her nine months old child in her hut along with her nine months child. Around 3:00 AM, a man entered her room, lifted her Ghaghra and tried to commit rape upon her. She caught hold of his hair, and shouted for help. Hearing her hue and cry, he elder brother, Gautam and her neighbour, also named Gautam, ran into her room in order to rescue her. Both of them caught hold of the appellant. There was a small lamp under her cot. It was list. The people in the room recognised the intruder as Shyama, the appellant. They tied him. They took the appellant to the police station and handed him over to the police. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR, FIR No.131/2007, was chalked out for offences under Sections 376/511, and 450 IPC. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for offences under Sections 354, 376/511 and 400 IPC. 3. In order to buttress its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses, and submitted six documents. The defence neither examined any witness, nor submitted any documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has stated that he does not wish to argue the appeal on merit. But, he prays that since the appellant has already undergone over year of his sentence, out of a sentence of two years, the sentence should be reduced to as undergone. Hence, this appeal before this court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has stated that he does not wish to argue the appeal on merit. But, he prays that since the appellant has already undergone over year of his sentence, out of a sentence of two years, the sentence should be reduced to as undergone. According to him, at the time of incident, the appellant was a young man of twenty-four years. Moreover, ever since the appellant has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2007, he has been leading a peaceful life in the village. There is no evidence to show that he has disturbed even tempo of life, or has committed any further offence against the prosecutrix, or her family members. Since he is leading his life as a law abiding citizen, no fruitful purpose would be served by incarcerating the appellant after a lapse of almost five years. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the reduction of the sentence to as undergone. 6. Undoubtedly, offence under Section 354 IPC is a serious one. However, while assessing the offence, the Court has to be sensitive to other factors as well. At the time of incident, the appellant was a young man of twenty four years, and the prosecutrix was a young lady of twenty years. According to the record, the appellant has already undergone more than one year of his sentence, out of his total sentence of two years. Thus, he has faced the music for his crime. Most importantly, ever since he is out on bail from October, 2007 till present, there is nothing on record to show that he has either committed any offence against the prosecutrix, or her family members, or against the society at large. Thus, it seems that the appellant is leading a peaceful life and is behaving as a law abiding citizen. In these circumstances, it is apparent that the appellant has reformed himself to the point that he can be brought back into the mainstream of society without being a threat to the society at large. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the sentence should be reduced as undergone. 7. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. In these circumstances, it is apparent that the appellant has reformed himself to the point that he can be brought back into the mainstream of society without being a threat to the society at large. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the sentence should be reduced as undergone. 7. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. While this Court confirms the conviction for offences under Sections 354 and 451 IPC, the sentence of the appellant is reduced to as already undergone.Appeal Partly allowed. *******