JUDGMENT Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. - The police filed charge sheet for the offence under section 354 I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant/ victim after getting down from the auto rickshaw at Upponka bus stop and proceeding to their village, the accused who was coming behind her, caught hold of her neck from behind and when the victim tried to push him aside, caught hold of her jacket and torn it, with an evil desire. On the afore said contentions and on a complaint given by the de facto complainant, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thavanampalle police station registered a crime vide crime No.15 of 2011 for the offence under section 354 I.P.C. 3. The learned Principal assistant Sessions Judge, Chittoor after elaborate trial relying on the evidence of PW-1 to PW-5 has convicted the accused for the offence under section 354 I.P.C. and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three (3) years and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment of one month. all the prosecution witnesses have categorically and unequivocally stated about the occurrence of the offence. 4. aggrieved by the judgment in S.C.No.470 of 2011, the petitioner/accused preferred criminal appeal before the lower appellate Court vide criminal appeal No.153 of 2012 in the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant in C.a.No.153 of 2012 has raised the following grounds: 1. The trial Court failed to note that the appellant was falsely implicated; 2. The trial Court erred in convicting on the basis of the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 who are interested witnesses; 3. The trial Court failed to note that there is no explanation for the delay of 21 hours in reporting the matter to police; 4. as per the statement of PW-3 he has seen one boy running from the de facto complainant, who says that he has not identified the culprit as the accused; 5. PW-1 to PW4 are relatives, whereas PW-3 and PW-4 are planted witnesses; 6. The case against the accused was foisted since the accused stopped in coming for coolie work under PW-2. 6. Basing on the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, the criminal appeal is dismissed, while confirming the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. 7. The case against the accused was foisted since the accused stopped in coming for coolie work under PW-2. 6. Basing on the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, the criminal appeal is dismissed, while confirming the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the scene of offence there is a house which belongs to one Sri Varada Reddy, S/o. Sri anji Reddy. Opposite to his house there is a Mango field and Sri E. Siddha Reddy, S/o. Sri Rami Reddy is the owner of the said garden. Those people are not examined by the prosecution. as per the report of the scene of offence there are no fields as stated by the de facto complainant. The non-examination of the above said persons is fatal to the prosecution and prayed to allow the Criminal Revision Case as there is discrepancy in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The said aspect was raised before the trial Court and the trial Court has discussed elaborately and convicted the accused. 8. The petitioner/accused has not raised any substantial questions of law before the revisional Court. The defense raised by the petitioner in the trial Court is that the petitioner was the farm servant of the family of the de facto complainant and he was asked to stop from attending the duties and as such he bore grudge and foisted a false case against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also raised another contention stating that there is a delay in lodging of F.I.R. However, the two contentions were answered in the trial Court and convicted the accused. 9. This Court exercising jurisdiction under sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. cannot re-appreciate the evidence and I find no reasons to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. However, the incident took place on February, 2011 and more than eleven (11) years have lapsed since the date of incident. Hence, this Court feels to reduce the sentence of imprisonment for a period of two (2) years instead of three (3) years. 10. accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of by confirming the conviction passed by the trial Court. Hence, this Court feels to reduce the sentence of imprisonment for a period of two (2) years instead of three (3) years. 10. accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of by confirming the conviction passed by the trial Court. as regards sentence, this Court feels it appropriate to modify the same and reduce the sentence of imprisonment to two (2) years of rigorous imprisonment instead of three (3) years. Registry is directed to send back the record along with the copy of this order to the Court below. 11. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.