Order : 1. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the accused-petitioner- Raju @ Rajuddin against Judgment and Order dated 04.12.2019 passed by Additional Session Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as "appellate court") in Criminal Appeal No. 161/2019 (Raju @ Rajudddin Vs. State of Rajasthan) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioner against the Judgment and Order of Sentence dated 05.02.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as "trial court") was partly allowed and sentence of two years simple imprisonment was modified as one and a half year simple imprisonment. The trial court convicted and sentenced accused- petitioner for the offence under section 379 I.P.C. to undergo two years with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine further undergo one month additional S.I. 2. Facts of the case in short are that on the basis of the written report (Ex.P/1 submitted by complainant- Seetaram with respect to an incident, which occurred on 07.05.2014, F.I.R. No. 398/2014 was registered at Police Station Mathura Gate District Bharatpur for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against accused- petitioner for the offences under Sections 379 & 411 of I.P.C. The trial court framed charges for the aforesaid offences and trial was commenced. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order of sentence dated 05.02.2016 whereby accused-petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. as stated above. Aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05.02.2016, accused- petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which passed the Judgment & Order dated 04.12.2019 partly allowing the appeal and while affirming conviction of accused petitioner modifying the order of sentence passed by the trial court. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner does not wish to press instant revision petition challenging judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction and prefers to make submissions on the point of sentence only. 5. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner does not wish to press instant revision petition challenging judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction and prefers to make submissions on the point of sentence only. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 2014 i.e. around 11 years ago; accused-petitioner was 25 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 36 years old and facing agony of trial since last more than 11 years; accused- petitioner who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of society and remained custody for a period of almost two months and there is no previous conviction recorded against the accused-petitioner, therefore, he prays that ends of justice would meet if a lenient view is taken in the matter and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner has relied upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this court at Jodhpur in the case of Ratan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.Criminal Appeal No. 84/1994)) decided on 20.08.2018. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the revision petition, submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking orders passed by the courts below, sentence awarded by the appellate court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through judgments passed by both the courts below and record of the case as also judgments cited in this case. 9. Since the revision petition against conviction of the accused- petitioner is not pressed on merits and after perusing the record, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the courts below, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgments passed by courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner. Accordingly, the judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner are maintained. 10. Accordingly, the judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner are maintained. 10. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, a perusal of record transpires that accused-petitioner, who was only 25 years young boy at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 11 years and he remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-petitioner is produced on record. 11. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) “There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.” Haripada Das (Supra) “…considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…” 12. After perusing judgments and orders impugned, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the precedent law on the issue, this Court is of the opinion that if at this stage, accused-petitioner is sent behind bars, the family of the petitioner will suffer a lot and no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now. 13. 13. Consequently, the judgments dated 04.12.2019 and 05.02.2016 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. are affirmed but the quantum of sentence for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. awarded to the accused-petitioner by the trial court and modified by the appellate court is further modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him, which would be sufficient and justifiable to serve interest of justice. The accused- petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. 14. The revision petition stands disposed of with aforesaid modification in the order of sentence. 15. A copy of this order along with records be sent to the trial court forthwith.