JUDGMENT 1. - The instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 28.7.1997 passed by Special Judge for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Cr. Case No.65/1996 by which the learned trial court convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 354 IPC read with Section 3(i)(xi) of the SC/ST Act and for offence under Section 447 IPC. The following punishment was given to the appellant: Under Section 354 IPC read with Section 3(i)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. 1 year RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default 3 months further SI Under Section 447 IPC To pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. 2. At the threshold the learned counsel for the appellant submits that incident took place on 19.4.1995 upon the complaint made by Smt. Maya W/o Malkiat Singh in which it is stated by her that my husband is working as truck driver and the day on which occurrence took place my husband was out and I was sleeping in the house of my father. At that time, in the night at about 11 O' Clock Chhinder Singh came in the house and put his hands on my mouth and started abusing and left the house. The incident was reported by Smt. Maya to her father and brother, thereafter, the FIR was registered under Section 354 and 447 IPC and the learned trial court after trial convicted the accused appellant for one year RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/- for offence under Section 354 read with Section 3 (i)(xi) of the SC/ST Act and for offence under Section 447 a fine of Rs. 250/- was imposed and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days SI. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant at the threshold submitted that the appellant is not challenging the conviction for the aforesaid offence but submits that incident took place in the year 1995 and after near-about 20 years in the interest of justice, his sentence awarded may be reduced to already undergone. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention towards the judgment rendered by this Court at Jaipur Bench in S.B. Cr. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention towards the judgment rendered by this Court at Jaipur Bench in S.B. Cr. Appeal No.21 of 1990 : Man Singh v. State of Rajasthan decided on 8.5.2013 in which almost in identical circumstances the coordinate bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench reduced the sentence to already undergone, therefore, this appeal may also be partly allowed and sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to already undergone. 4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that appellant is not entitled for any leniency because he has committed an offence which is serious in nature. 5. It emerges from the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant does not want to challenge the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 354 IPC read with Section 3(i)(xi) of SC/ST Act and under Section 447 IPC and he remained in custody from 12.5.1995 to 16.5.1995 and from 28.7.1997 to 27.8.1997, therefore, he remained in judicial custody for more than one month and admittedly, the incident took place in the year 1995, therefore, with a view to secure the ends of justice the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to already undergone by him for offence under Section 354 IPC read with Section 3(i)(xi) of SC/ST Act and under Section 447 IPC. However, the fine imposed against the appellant for offence under Section 447 IPC which is Rs. 250/- is hereby enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- which shall be deposited by the appellant in the learned trial court within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receiving certified copy of this order.Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed in above terms.Petition allowed. *******