ORDER : Heard the petitioner’s counsel and the learned HCGP appearing for the State. 2. This revision petition is filed challenging the judgment of conviction passed in CC No.986/2008 dated 03.04.2010 convicting the accused/revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 354 504, 506 of IPC and also dismissal of Crl.A.No.64/2010 confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the revision petitioner married the complainant on 31.05.2002 and subsequently divorce was granted on 29.09.2006. The incident is dated 11.07.2008 and also 12.07.2008 alleging that the revision petitioner went to the shop in which the divorced wife was working and trespassed the said shop and held her left hand and outraged her modesty and also abused in filthy language and caused life threat. 4. The prosecution to prove the charges leveled against the revision petitioner, examined PWs.1 to 8 and also got marked documents as Exs.P.1 to 5. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. The trial Judge considering the evidence of the victim PW.1 and also her relatives and so also the evidence of PW.6, who is an independent witness convicted the accused. The First Appellate Court considering the material on record re-appreciated the same and comes to the conclusion that the trial Judge has appreciated the evidence of the witnesses and there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. 5. The revision petitioner in the present petition would contend that both the Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence available on record. The evidence of PW.6 reveals that the police have started their investigation much prior to filing of this complaint and the evidence of the complainant is unnatural, artificial, besides being un-creditworthy. The counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument he reiterates that both the Courts have overlooked the evidence on record and hence, this Court has to exercise its revisional power. 6. Per contra, the learned HCGP would contend that both the Courts have not committed any error and the judgment is not suffering from any illegality and also considering the evidence on record and particularly, considering the evidence of PW.1 which has been corroborated by the PW.6 has rightly convicted the accused and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of both the Courts. 7. 7. Having heard the arguments of the petitioner’s counsel and the learned HCGP, the point that arise for consideration of this Court is that whether the judgment of conviction and the appellate order suffers from any illegality or overlooked the evidence available on record. 8. In keeping the contention urged by the revision petitioner and also the learned HCGP and on perusal of the evidence available on record, PW.1 was subjected to cross-examination in detail and in the cross-examination no doubt it is elicited that the accused was not having her mobile number and also it is elicited that the shop in which the incident was taken place is surrounded by other shops. It is suggested that she ignored the incident dated 11.07.2008 and 12.07.2008 and hence, it is clear that the accused himself has admitted the incident and the charge leveled against him. Except answer with regard to the accused was not having any mobile number of the complainant, nothing worthwhile is elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1. The counsel for the petitioner would contend that name of PW.6 is not found in the complaint that he was present at the time of the incident. On perusal of the evidence of PW.6, his evidence is consistent that on the date of the incident he had been to the shop in which PW.1 was working to purchase electronic material and the incident was taken place. In the cross-examination of PW.6 nothing is elicited with regard to the incident is concerned and it is elicited from the mouth of the PW.6 that the accused held her hand and dragged her. 9. Having considered the evidence of PW.1 and PW.6, both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have appreciated the material on record. The incident was corroborated by PW.6, who is an independent witness. No doubt, the owner of the shop has turned hostile, but the evidence of PW.1 and PW.6 is consistent. Both the Courts have not committed any error in appreciating the evidence and hence, this Court does not find any material to comes to the conclusion that both the Courts have overlooked the evidence on record. 10. On perusal of the entire material on record, this Court does not find any manifest illegality committed by the Courts. Both the Courts have not committed any error in appreciating the evidence and hence, this Court does not find any material to comes to the conclusion that both the Courts have overlooked the evidence on record. 10. On perusal of the entire material on record, this Court does not find any manifest illegality committed by the Courts. Hence, this Court does not find any reasons to interfere with the findings of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 11. However, taking into note the fact that PW.1, who is divorced wife of the revision petitioner herein and also the incident was taken place in the year 2008 and almost one decade and two years has been lapsed and also the divorce was obtained on 29.09.2006 and it is also elicited from the mouth of the PW.1 that the revision petitioner did not object for getting divorce and having taken note of the circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to modify the sentence instead of sending the revision petitioner to suffer the sentence and fine can be imposed. Hence, considering the relationship between the parties and also the factual aspects of the case, it is just and reasonable to impose a fine of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) in lieu of the sentence. 12. In view of the discussions made above, this Court proceed to pass the following : ORDER The petition is partly allowed modifying the sentence passed by the trial Court. Instead of sentence, fine of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) is imposed. The revision petitioner is directed to pay the said amount to PW.1-Smt.Pankaja Chaugale within six weeks’ from today. If the revision petitioner fails to pay the said amount, he has to suffer the sentence as awarded by the trial Court.