JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 10.08.2001 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Cr. Appeal No.49 of 1999 by 17 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 08.10.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih in G.R. Case No. 2040 of 1996 (T.R.No.1223 of 1999) arising out of Jamua P.S. Case No.174 of 1996 by which the petitioner had been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 452 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and two years respectively has been affirmed. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the witnesses being related to the victim are interested witnesses. It has also been stated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on account of the petitioner filing a case before the labour court for realization of his dues which could be gathered from ext./A and ext./A-1. In the alternative, an argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if this court is not inclined to interfere in the judgment of conviction the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner be suitably modified in view of the fact that the petitioner is facing rigours of the prosecution case since the year 1996 and had also remained in custody for about five months. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 5. It appears that the first information report was instituted by the father of the victim Dhaneshwar Rai wherein it was alleged that on 09.10.1996 in the night, the petitioner had entered into the house of the informant forcibly and after closing the door of the courtyard had entered into the room of the daughter with an intention to outrage her modesty. It is also alleged that when the victim had raised an alarm and was tried to be rescued by her brother, who was caught by the petitioner, the petitioner forcibly with a bad intention had dragged her. Allegation has also been levelled against the petitioner that after raising an alarm, the petitioner had managed to flee away. It is also alleged that when the victim had raised an alarm and was tried to be rescued by her brother, who was caught by the petitioner, the petitioner forcibly with a bad intention had dragged her. Allegation has also been levelled against the petitioner that after raising an alarm, the petitioner had managed to flee away. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Jamua P.S. Case No.74 of 1996 was instituted. 6. After investigation culminated in the submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and thereafter the case was transferred to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Giridih for trial. Charges were also framed against the petitioner under Sections 452, 323, 341 and 354 of the IPC and the trial proceeded. 7. In course of trial, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.-1 Bandhain Tirky is the grandmother of the victim who has supported the prosecution case. This witness has further stated that she had lighted the matchstick and on seeing the same the petitioner had closed her mouth forcibly. P.W.-1 has also stated that the petitioner thereafter had left her and had caught hold of the victim and on account of several peoples assembling due to the alarm raised by the victim as well as P.W.-1, the petitioner had managed to flee away. P.W.-2 Sudhir Tirki is the husband of the P.W.-1 who has also supported the prosecution case. Similar statements have also been given by P.W.-3 Manoj Kumar and P.W.-4 Mukesh Kumar who all have supported the prosecution case. P.W.-5 Kumari Rekhabala has stated that while she was sleeping with her younger brother, in the meantime one man forcibly had entered into the room and searching for her. This witness has stated that due to darkness the petitioner caught hold of the grandmother of the victim who woke up and lighted the matchstick and thereafter the petitioner forcibly snatched the matchbox from her and threw it. The petitioner had come near the younger brother of the victim girl and had caught hold of her hand and started dragging her. P.W.-5 has further stated that after raising an alarm P.W.-6 had come along with the mother at which the petitioner fled away but this witness had been able to identify the petitioner. The petitioner had come near the younger brother of the victim girl and had caught hold of her hand and started dragging her. P.W.-5 has further stated that after raising an alarm P.W.-6 had come along with the mother at which the petitioner fled away but this witness had been able to identify the petitioner. It has further been stated that before the incident the petitioner along with one Kedar Yadav and Lakshman Yadav used to stalk these witnesses and on 10.10.1996 this petitioner had once again entered into the room of the victim with ill intention. P.W.-5 had identified the petitioner in the dock. P.W.-6 is the informant who also happens to be the father of the victim. This witness had supported the witnesses in its entirety and has further stated that a panchayati was held and the petitioner on appearing before the panchayat had been imposed a fine but inspite of depositing the fine, the informant was threatened by the petitioner with dire consequences. On the same night, the petitioner had entered into the house of the informant and tried to outrage the modesty of her daughter. P.W.-7 Satya Narain Pandey is the Investigating Officer of the case who had visited the place of occurrence and had also taken the statements of the witnesses under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 8. The evidence of the case have been consistent with respect to forcible entry made by the petitioner into the house of P.W.-6 in search of victim P.W.-5. It further appears that P.Ws. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are all eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Petitioner was identified by the witnesses when he had entered into the room and had tried to drag the victim. Further evidence has come with respect to previous attempt made by the petitioner in outraging the modesty of the victim as has been stated by the victim P.W.-5 herself. The act of the petitioner seems to be in retaliation to the fine imposed by the panchayat upon him for the said act. Although, the petitioner had tried to take a plea in defence that he has falsely been implicated in the case as some amount was due from the informant and only with a view to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate claim, the first information report had been instituted. Although, the petitioner had tried to take a plea in defence that he has falsely been implicated in the case as some amount was due from the informant and only with a view to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate claim, the first information report had been instituted. Though, ext./A and ext.A/1 have been produced before the learned trial court but the same has been disbelieved mainly on account of the fact that in the statement recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C, the petitioner had not disclosed about the said fact, rather he had stated that he is innocent. Moreover, the defence taken by the petitioner is totally unbelievable and untrustworthy in view of the fact that the chastity of the girl was attempted to be taken away by the petitioner and the informant being the father of the victim girl would not prop up his daughter in order to deprive the petitioner of his claim which he alleges. 9. The learned trial court as well as the appellant court on proper appreciation of the material available on record has rightly convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 452 of the IPC. There being no reason to conclude otherwise the judgment and order of conviction passed against the petitioner is sustained. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that he is facing the rigours of the prosecution case since the year 1996 and the petitioner has intermittently for a period of five months remained in custody. Considering the long pendency of the case coupled with the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 10. This application stands dismissed with aforesaid modification in sentence.