ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 07.06.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2001 whereby and where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27.06.2001 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code has been affirmed and the sentence has been reduced to one month rigorous imprisonment. 3. A First Information Report was instituted wherein it was alleged that while the informant was coming from the pond after washing her hand the petitioner and another co-villager had caught the informant and had tried to take her in a vacant hut with ill intention. It is alleged that when the informant raised alarm her elder brother came at which the petitioner managed to flee away. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation Maheshpur P. S. Case No. 43 of 1998 was instituted under Sections 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and after cognizance was taken and after commitment of the case charge was framed under Sections 376 and 511of the Indian Penal Code and trial proceeded. The learned trial court vide judgment dated 27.06.2001 had convicted the petitioner under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2001 which however was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur on 07.06.2002 by modifying the sentence imposed upon the petitioner to rigorous imprisonment for one month. 5. It has been stated by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been implicated on account of previous enmity existing between the parties. It has been stated that the father of the informant (P.W. -3) has brought the incident to the knowledge of the police but the said earliest version of the incident had never been brought forward by the prosecution and on such score itself the prosecution case itself became doubtful. It has also been stated that most of the witnesses are related to the informant and they being interested witnesses their testimony should not have been relied upon by the learned court below. 6. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 7. It has also been stated that most of the witnesses are related to the informant and they being interested witnesses their testimony should not have been relied upon by the learned court below. 6. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 7. In course of trial six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 8. P.W. -1, Anikul Rahman Sk, is the brother of the informant who has disclosed that he had come to the place of occurrence on hearing the cry of alarm raised by his sister. This witness has also stated that he had seen the petitioner holding the informant. On arrival of this witness the petitioner had managed to flee away and later on the informant had disclosed about the occurrence to this witness. 9. P.W. -3, Safar Sk, is the father of the informant who on information had come to his house and saw the informant cry. This witness has also stated that the informant had disclosed about the occurrence to him. 10. P.W. -4, Md. Jaffar Sk, is the uncle of the informant who has also stated on similar terms to the effect that the informant had disclosed about the incident involving the petitioner. 11. P.W. -5, Khalida Khatoon, is the informant who has stated that when she was returning home after washing her hand petitioner and one another had tried to forcibly take her to the vacant house. This witness has disclosed that she when raised alarm she was threatened with a dagger. It is stated that when the brother of the informant came the petitioner managed to flee away. 12. P.W. -6, Arun Kumar, is the Investigating Officer of the case. 13. The evidence of the witnesses would thus disclose that while the informant was coming out from the pond after washing her hands she was accosted by the petitioner and another person and they were forcibly trying to take her to a vacant hut. The version of P.W. -5 has been sufficiently corroborated by the evidence of P.W. -1 and P.W. -3. P.W. -1 is the brother of the informant had also supported the factum of occurrence on the point of the petitioner trying to hold the informant and on arrival of this witness the petitioner had managed to flee away. The version of P.W. -5 has been sufficiently corroborated by the evidence of P.W. -1 and P.W. -3. P.W. -1 is the brother of the informant had also supported the factum of occurrence on the point of the petitioner trying to hold the informant and on arrival of this witness the petitioner had managed to flee away. The other witnesses being P.W. -2 and P.W. -4 have also stated about the disclosure made by the informant regarding the incident involving the petitioner. Thus evidence of P.W. -5 is corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses and merely because some of the witnesses are related to the informant the same by itself would not lead to discarding their testimony as consistency in their evidence is writ large on the face of it. 14. Such circumstance, therefore, does not entitle the petitioner to cause interference in the impugned judgment and order of conviction which was subsequently affirmed in appeal. Therefore, the order of conviction is, hereby, sustained. 15. However, with respect to the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since 1998. The petitioner has also remained in custody for sometime out of maximum sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment. 16. Considering the aforesaid scenario the period of sentence imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 17. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.