JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant Criminal Revision is directed against the Judgment dated 23.04.2016 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.01.2016 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. Ghatsila in G.R. No. 622 of 2013 arising out Musaboni P.S. Case No. 58 of 2013, wherein the petitioner was held guilty for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to undergo R.I for two years and six months along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation, has been dismissed. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that prosecutrix is a student of Engineering at Bhubaneshwar and from the last several years, the petitioner used to tease her whenever he found her alone and used to utter obscene words and upon her objection, the petitioner used to threaten her with dire consequences and would be falsely implicated in SC/ST case, as the petitioner belongs to member of Scheduled Tribes. It is alleged that several times petitioner used on touch her bunch of hair and back portion of her body with bad intention. The petitioner also gave missed call on mobile phone of her father and mother. The petitioner has filed a petition before the Mukhiya Smt. Sukaramoni Hembram in Barsole. Photo copy of that petition was given to her through Soma Devi (Ward Member). Sukormoni Hembrem and Rani Sabrin informed the father of the victim girl that petitioner has spent Rs. 50,000/- and he is in connection with senior political leaders, thereafter victim has lodged FIR against the petitioner bearing Musabani P.S. Case No. 58 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 622 of 2013 dated 26.12.2013 registered for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner for the aforesaid section and thereafter, charge was famed against the petitioner, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. After conclusion of trial, the petitioner was held guilty for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid. 6. 5. After conclusion of trial, the petitioner was held guilty for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid. 6. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.01.2016, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2016 and vide impugned judgment dated 23.04.2016, the appeal was dismissed, which has been assailed in this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment and order has vehemently argued that admittedly there was love affairs between the petitioner and the prosecutrix and the petitioner has also spent huge amount of money upon study of the prosecutrix and upon demand, that amount was never returned and he was also in talking terms with the mother and father of the victim. It is further submitted that due to dispute and differences between prosecutrix and petitioner, present FIR was lodged as a counter blast to the application made by the petitioner to the Mukhiya of Barsole. The petitioner has given application to the Mukhiya to settle his dispute with the informant as both were in love and desiring to marry each other. The mukhiya also reported about indebtedness of the prosecutrix to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- as is admitted in the FIR itself. The prosecutrix has not mentioned any specific allegation about any kind of overt act committed by the petitioner with her amounting to outrage her modesty, rather she has developed some new stories at the time of her examination during trial in utter contradiction with her statement recorded by the I.O. during investigation of the case. Both the courts below have failed to consider the materials contradiction, improvement and discrepancies in the evidence of prosecutrix and other witness as such committed serious illegality. Petitioner is absolutely innocent and admittedly extended monetary help to the father of victim girl. The incident has been uttered to have happened in between the year 2010 to 2013 but nothing specific has been brought against the petitioner. Hence, impugned Judgment and Order is not legally sustainable and fit to be set aside. 8. Petitioner is absolutely innocent and admittedly extended monetary help to the father of victim girl. The incident has been uttered to have happened in between the year 2010 to 2013 but nothing specific has been brought against the petitioner. Hence, impugned Judgment and Order is not legally sustainable and fit to be set aside. 8. Hence, in alternative, it is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that during trial of the case and pendency of the appeal, the appellant has remained in custody for about four months, which may be treated as sufficient punishment for the offence committed by the petitioner and accordingly sentence awarded by the learned trial court may be modified to the extent of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. 9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contention on behalf of petitioner and submitted that the prosecutrix has fully corroborated the prosecution story and the versions contained in the FIR. Other witnesses have also categorically corroborated in the testimony of victim. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of victim or false implication of the petitioner without any clenching motive for false implication. There is no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and this revision is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits. 10. I have gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court and also considered the rival contentions of the parties. It is obvious that there was love affairs between the victim girl and the present petitioner and they used to take money from each other and occasionally residing at different place with their own sweet will. The petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. which was upheld in the appeal in the year 2016. The petitioner has also remained in custody for about four months during pendency of trial of the case. The petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. which was upheld in the appeal in the year 2016. The petitioner has also remained in custody for about four months during pendency of trial of the case. Now more than a decade has been passed from the date of complaint/accusations against the petitioner and both the parties have settled in their life in their own ways, therefore, further detention of petitioner does not appear to serve any useful purpose in the eyes of law, as such, I find force in the alternate plea of the petitioner that he has already been sufficiently punished in view of fact that he has remained for more than four months imprisonment. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, the present criminal revision is dismissed on merits and impugned judgments of both the courts below are hereby upheld, subject to modification in sentence awarded to the petitioner to the extent as mentioned above i.e. the petitioner is awarded sentence of imprisonment already undergone. 12. Petitioner is on bail, as such, he shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged. 13. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the court concerned for information and needful.