JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. B. K. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 19.06.2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2001 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro by which the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Bokaro at Chas in S.T. No. 69 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the petitioner had been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years has been modified convicting the petitioner under Section 354 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 2 years. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that a complaint was made before the learned C.J.M., Bokaro with the allegation that the complainant and the petitioner are residents of the same place and since the petitioner was doing the job of agent of peerless company under the complainant's mother, he was a frequent visitor to the place of the complainant. It was alleged that on 04.10.1999 at about 4 P.M., when the parents of the complainant were not present in their house, the petitioner had entered in the house and had tried to outrage her modesty, but when the complainant's mother came, the complainant could be freed. The complainant on such allegation had filed Chas P. S. Case No. 189 of 1999 under Section 448/354 of I.P.C. against the petitioner. Further allegation has been levelled that on 31.10.1999 at about 3 PM when the parents of the complainant had gone for medical consultation, the petitioner came, pressed the mouth of the complainant and after taking her to the bed-room had forcibly committed rape upon her. It is also alleged that she was threatened with dire consequences if the matter was disclosed by her. It is also alleged that when the parents returned, they found the complainant in an injured condition and blood was coming out from her private parts. Thereafter medical treatment was provided to her and when the parents of the complainant went to the house of the petitioner, he was found absent, but his wife had protested and starting quarreling. It is also alleged that when the parents returned, they found the complainant in an injured condition and blood was coming out from her private parts. Thereafter medical treatment was provided to her and when the parents of the complainant went to the house of the petitioner, he was found absent, but his wife had protested and starting quarreling. Since the police has refused to register a case, a complaint case was registered which was subsequently sent to the police under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. leading to registration of G. R. No. 751 of 2000 under Section 376 of I.P.C. After investigation culminated in submission of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and since the offence was found to be under Section 376 of I.P.C., triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge IInd, Bokaro at Chas, where trial proceeded. Since the prosecution had been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2001 in which vide judgment dated 19.06.2002, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C. and he was accordingly, sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years. 4. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no case under Section 354 of I.P.C. has been made out. It has been submitted that on account of previous enmity the petitioner had also filed a case against the parents of the victim; and a case of rape has been thrust upon the petitioner which however was disbelieved by the learned appellate court. It has further been stated that the matter has been compromised between both the parties in all the cases which were pending against each other. In the alternative, an argument has been put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has remained in custody for about one year out of the maximum punishment of 2 years R.I. and since the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 2000, the same be reduced substantially in the interest of justice. 5. 5. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 3 witnesses. P.W. 1 – Lal Babu Choudhary is the father of the informant, P.W. 2 – Sonali Devi is the mother of the informant whereas P.W. 3 – Manju Kumari is the victim herself. P.W. 1 has stated that at the time of incident, his daughter was aged less than 14 years. This witness has stated that at the relevant point of time, he and his wife were not present at the house and when they returned back, P.W. 3 had stated about the rape committed upon her by the petitioner. This witness has further stated that since the police had not registered any case, a complaint was filed before the learned C.J.M. This witness in his cross-examination has admitted about the petitioner having filed a case against him as well as his wife. He has further stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties. P.W. 2 – Sonali Devi is the mother of the informant who had denied about stating before the police about the bleeding from the body of her daughter and that she was taken for treatment to the doctor. She has further denied to have stated before the police that the petitioner had committed rape upon her daughter when she and her husband were not in their house. She has further stated that the case has been compromised between both the parties. P.W. 3 – Manju Kumar is the informant and the victim also who has stated that on the date of incident, she was alone in her house. She has further stated that the petitioner had come in her house, tied her hands and legs with a gamchha, closed her mouth and did an indecent act. She further stated that the petitioner had threatened her not to disclose about the incident. P.W. 3 has also stated that when the parents came, she disclosed the incident to her parents who took her to doctor where her wounds were stitched and injections were also given. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted to a case pending between the petitioner and her parents. She further stated that the petitioner used to regularly come to his house as he was working along with his parents. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted to a case pending between the petitioner and her parents. She further stated that the petitioner used to regularly come to his house as he was working along with his parents. The cross-examination having been continued subsequently, she has further stated that the matter between both the parties have finally been settled. 6. The evidence of P.W. 3 although does not state about commission of rape by the petitioner, but it does suggest that the petitioner had committed an indecent act upon the P.W. 3 which led the learned appellate court to convict the petitioner for the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C. and sentenced him accordingly. It has rightly been held by the learned appellate court that no case of rape is made out against the petitioner in view of the evidence of P.W. 3. However, as has been noted above, the act of the petitioner of tying her hands and legs with a gamchha and closing her mouth and doing an indecent act does attract offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. Such circumstances therefore, does not entitle the petitioner to cause interference in the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioner which is hereby affirmed. 7. However, with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon the petitioner, it appears that the matter between both the sides have been compromised as has been stated by the P.W. 1, 2 & 3. It further appears that out of a maximum punishment of 2 years R.I., the petitioner has remained in custody for a total period of about a year. The petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 2000. The facts which has been noted above, entitle the petitioner to a reduction in the sentence awarded to him. On such consideration therefore, the period of sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 8. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.