R.P. Nagrath, J. Petitioner has filed the instant revision to challenge the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by Courts below for offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and imposition of sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of ` 500/-. The facts may be narrated briefly:- PW-1 complainant/prosecutrix is a homemaker and at the same time working as an agent with Max New York Life Insurance Company. She is resident of Jagdambey Colony, Majitha Road, Amritsar. In connection with her agency work, she went to the house of petitioner, situated in Pawan Nagar, for collecting account number for insurance policy on 30.11.2009. Wife of the petitioner served a glass of water to the complainant and went in the other room. 2. While PW-1 was talking to the petitioner at about 10.00 a.m. that the petitioner held the prosecutrix and embraced her. The petitioner held her breasts and tried to kiss her. The petitioner remarked that the prosecutrix should agree to his demand and he would arrange thousands of policies for her. PW-1 objected to these advances and tried to save herself. The petitioner held her from her right leg. The prosecutrix kicked him away and came down in the street and started shouting. She then came to her house and informed about the incident to her husband telephonically, who had gone to Jalandhar for some personal work. After her husband returned home, they proceeded towards the police station to report the matter, that in the way the police party headed by ASI Shiv Nath met them. Ex. P1 the statement of prosecutrix was recorded by the ASI at about 7.10 p.m. on the same day and formal FIR was registered. On completion of investigation charge-sheet against the petitioner was presented. 3. Charge was framed against the petitioner for offence under Section 354 IPC. The prosecution in support of its case examined the prosecutrix and her husband as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively. The prosecution was unable to produce remaining witnesses despite sufficient opportunities and further request for adjournment was turned down and evidence was closed by order. 4. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him and pleaded false implication. In defence the petitioner examined his wife as DW-1. 5. The prosecution was unable to produce remaining witnesses despite sufficient opportunities and further request for adjournment was turned down and evidence was closed by order. 4. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him and pleaded false implication. In defence the petitioner examined his wife as DW-1. 5. The learned trial Court convicted the petitioner of the charge framed against him and sentenced him as aforesaid. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State counsel and perused the judgments rendered by both the Courts below and also the trial Court record quite carefully. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that there was only the testimony of prosecutrix in support of the charge and even investigating officer was not produced. It was further contended that if the conviction has been maintained only on the said evidence, then nobody in the society would be safe. It was also contended that in such an eventuality there would be no need to hold trial, despite the petitioner having a probable defence to set up. The learned counsel submitted that the testimony of prosecutrix alone may be sufficient but her statement is highly doubtful. 8. Learned State counsel on the other hand contended that there was no ulterior motive for the prosecutrix and her husband to falsely implicate the petitioner for such an offence which has devastating impact on the dignity and honour of complainant and her family. 9. The instant case primarily depends on acceptability of testimony of prosecutrix and her husband. Non-examination of the investigating officer cannot be fatal to the prosecution story. In Narendra Nath Khaware and others vs. Parasnath Khaware, AIR 2003 SC 2325 the complainant was the only actual eyewitness. Ram Dhani Jha etc. came on the spot, may be, immediately after the event, and were therefore, not eye-witnesses of the incident. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:- So far as the non-examination of the Investigating Officer is concerned, it is settled law that the same is not fatal to the prosecution case. Ram Dhani Jha etc. came on the spot, may be, immediately after the event, and were therefore, not eye-witnesses of the incident. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:- So far as the non-examination of the Investigating Officer is concerned, it is settled law that the same is not fatal to the prosecution case. It has been often found that in order to help the accused party, specially in case where Investigating Officers are won over for whatever consideration, the Investigating Officers absent themselves and do not appear as witness in court. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Pandurang Sitaram Bhagwat vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (9) SCC 44 . In that case the trial Court had observed as under:- As regards the submission of probability of false implicating of the accused, I find it difficult to digest that a woman will prefer to put her character at stake only in order to take revenge or in order to implicate the accused falsely, particularly when her husband serves in police department. Alka and her husband could have easily made false charge of house trespass, causing of hurt etc. to lodge prosecution and it was not necessary for them to put to stake character of Alka by making false accusations of outraging of modesty by accused No. 1.... 11. In Pandurang's case (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the approach of learned trial Court as noticed supra that ordinarily a lady would not "put her character at stake" may not be wrong but that cannot be applied universally. Each case has to be determined on the touchstone of the factual matrix thereof. The law reports are replete with decisions where charges under Section 376 and 354 of IPC have been found to have been falsely advanced. 12. The present case, therefore, has to be understood and appreciated in the light of above principles. The question basically is whether testimony of the prosecutrix as PW-1 brings forth the truthful version of the incident or whether the petitioner is being implicated falsely. 13. The prosecutrix testified the incident in the witness box as PW-1 that she went to the house of petitioner for collecting the account number. The question basically is whether testimony of the prosecutrix as PW-1 brings forth the truthful version of the incident or whether the petitioner is being implicated falsely. 13. The prosecutrix testified the incident in the witness box as PW-1 that she went to the house of petitioner for collecting the account number. She was discussing the case with the petitioner that he held her arms and told that if she would agree to his demand he can manage thousands of such policies for the prosecutrix. Sensing foul the prosecutrix tried to run away, that the petitioner held her from her right leg. The prosecutrix saved herself with difficulty and came in the street and started shouting. 14. The factum that prosecutrix visited the house of petitioner on that day, is not disputed. DW-1 Jyoti Bala wife of the petitioner stated that she was present in the house on 30.11.2009 but no such incident as put-forth by the prosecutrix had taken place. DW-1 also stated that in fact the prosecutrix is agent of insurance company and was pressing them for getting the insurance policy to which they refused and therefore, a false story has been concocted. DW-1 has not disputed about the prosecutrix coming to their house on 30.11.2009 in the morning. It is impossible to believe such a defence plea in view of the cogent evidence of prosecution which emanates from natural course of events that took place. There is only meager amount of commission which an agent could earn from one policy. No question was put to PW-1 in cross-examination about the presence and conduct of DW-1 at the time of incident, so as to contradict the complainant with the version Ex. P1 stated before the police. 15. The prosecutrix was called for cross-examination for three times after her chief-examination was recorded. On 04.07.2011, the cross-examination was deferred on the request of the counsel for the petitioner. Despite all this humiliation that PW-1 had to face, the prosecutrix withstood the test of scrutiny and is proved to be a truthful person having brought correct version of the incident which happened with her. 16. In the cross-examination the prosecutrix testified that her family is financially sound and her husband has sufficient income as a property dealer. She earns about ` 5000/- quarterly from agency of insurance company. 16. In the cross-examination the prosecutrix testified that her family is financially sound and her husband has sufficient income as a property dealer. She earns about ` 5000/- quarterly from agency of insurance company. She is also running boutique and earning ` 10,000/- to 15,000/- per month from the said business. The prosecutrix (PW-1) and her husband (PW-2) consistently stated that the prosecutrix is only fond of working, despite their sound financial condition. There is nothing wrong in the prosecutrix running a boutique as well as working as agent of the insurance company. The people like the petitioner cannot take liberty to offend modesty of females. The statement of prosecutrix and her husband as PW-2, that they are financially sound, would rather demolish the entire defence version that prosecutrix ever wanted to force the petitioner to invest in the insurance policy, and for not agreeing to do so, involve him in a false case of this nature. Jyoti Bala (DW-1) stated in the cross-examination that the prosecutrix has visited their house 3 or 4 times prior to the 30.09.2011, and that seems to have encouraged the petitioner to take liberty and outrage her modesty little realizing that the prosecutrix comes from a good family. 17. PW-2 testified about receiving a telephonic call from his wife while he was at Jalandhar. When he came back from Jalandhar, they both proceeded towards the police station to report the matter. PW-2 has also been cross-examined extensively and there is nothing to suspect his testimony. PW-2 is working as a property dealer for the past about 27 years. 18. The factum of PW-1 informing her husband telephonically and both going together to the police to report the incident, is the immediate conduct of the prosecutrix which would be relevant and make the entire version truthful. The prosecutrix is not shown to be a lady of immoral virtues nor there is anything suspicious about her antecedents. Rather there was no such suggestion to the prosecutrix that she ever indulged in similar incidents. With such an incident rather, the petitioner has demonstrated his male chauvinism. His conduct may have demeaning effect on the mindset of the prosecutrix and she would always feel discouraged in her zeal to work 19. Rather there was no such suggestion to the prosecutrix that she ever indulged in similar incidents. With such an incident rather, the petitioner has demonstrated his male chauvinism. His conduct may have demeaning effect on the mindset of the prosecutrix and she would always feel discouraged in her zeal to work 19. With the above discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings reached by the Courts below in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The instant revision to challenge the conviction thus deserves to be dismissed. 20. In the end learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is 42 years old and has faced agony of the trial since 2009. His conduct during the trial has been quite fair and bona-fide and not obstructed the course of trial and the appeal. In the circumstances of the case, therefore, the petitioner deserves a benevolent consideration in the matter of sentence. 21. Before taking up the above contention it may be mentioned that the learned trial Court imposed ` 500/- as fine apart from sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year but the period of imprisonment in default of making payment of fine was not specified. This was necessary. However, there is no need to pass any order to make such a correction as it was stated that amount of fine stood paid before filing of the appeal. 22. It was also contended that the petitioner may be released on probation of good conduct. 23. In the FIR prosecutrix reported that the petitioner caught her breasts and tried to kiss her but she shied away from reiterating this specific act of petitioner in the witness box. The fact remains that the petitioner did not confront her with the statement made before the police on any aspect. She however stated categorically that the petitioner assaulted her physically and used criminal force and outraged her modesty by first holding her from arms and while prosecutrix was trying to run away, the petitioner physically held her from her legs and made vulgar remarks that he could arrange thousands of policies for her. 24. The petitioner is in custody since 25.07.2013. He is not stated to be a habitual offender. From the circumstances in which the incident happened, I find that the period already undergone by the petitioner would be sufficient punishment. 24. The petitioner is in custody since 25.07.2013. He is not stated to be a habitual offender. From the circumstances in which the incident happened, I find that the period already undergone by the petitioner would be sufficient punishment. In view of the above, the instant revision is partly allowed with the modification that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone, whereas the revision to challenge merits of conviction is dismissed. _