ORDER Mukteshwar Prasad, J.
1. This criminal revision, at the instance of accused, is directed against the judgment and order dated 20-3-86 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 134 of 1985 whereby the appeal was dismissed and conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant under Section 354, IPC was maintained.
2. In brief, the facts of the prosecution case are as under.
3. A written report was lodged by P.W. 1 Natthu La, husband of Smt. Kanti at police station Titavi on 27-7-83 at 12-10 p.m. with the allegations that on 26-7-83 at about 7.00 p.m. Smt. Kanti had gone to attend call of nature in the fields situate in village Nonha Khera. When she was returning home, the revisionist met her in the way and tried to outrage her modesty by pressing her breasts. However, on account of timely arrival of two witnesses, Pala and Dharamveer, her prestige was saved. She reached home and narrated the entire story to her husband who lodged the report. After investigation, the revisionist was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 354, IPC.
4. Accused pleaded not guilty.
5. At the trial, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Natthu Lal, P.W. 2 Smt. Kanti, P.W. 3 Pala, who turned hostile and P.W. 4 S.I. Mukesh Kumar Tyagi, I.O. of the case.
6. Accused pleaded that he was falsely implicated on account of enmity and examined the aforesaid Dharamveer in his defence.
7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, learned Magistrate found the accused guilty and convicted him under Section 354, IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
8. On an appeal, filed by the accused, learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant.
9. I have heard Sri Praveen Kumar Giri, holding brief of Sri S.S. Giri, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the judgments passed by the Courts below. It has been urged that undue delay took place in lodging the FIR and the revisionist was falsely implicated on account of enmity because he was a Pairokar of Gulab Singh, who had filed a complaint against the husband of the lady and others. It is also contended that independent witnesses of the incident did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile. Lastly, it has been submitted that the revisionist may be sentenced to the period already undergone or some fine may be imposed upon him.
10. After having considered the submissions made on behalf of the revisionist, I find no force in the contention of revisionist's learned counsel. So far as delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the same was explained satisfactorily and Appellate Court has given cogent reasons. Needless to say that in such cases, the honour and prestige of the family is involved and nobody would like to drag female members of the family to Courts unnecessarily. The incident took place, with the young wife of the informant at about 7.00 p.m. and incident was reported to the police next day. Both the Courts below believed the testimony of the lady on the point that an attempt was made to outrage her modesty by the revisionist and I see no valid reason to take a contrary view. It is true that P.W. 3 Pala, an independent witness, turned hostile, but this makes no difference. The law of the country lays emphasis on the quality and not quantity. It is well settled that evidence has to be weighed and not counted.
11. In view of the above discussion, I find that the revisionist was rightly found guilty and convicted under Section 354 IPC and his conviction is affirmed. So far as sentence is concerned, I find that incident, in question, took place on 27-7-83 and the appeal was dismissed on 20-3-86. It means, more than twenty years have elapsed since commission of the offence by the revisionist. After dismissal of his appeal, he remained in jail for about a week. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the sentence has to be reduced to the period already undergone and some fine will meet the ends of justice.
12. The revisionist is, therefore, sentenced to the period already undergone by him and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- within a period of six weeks from today. In default of payment of fine, the revisionist shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
13. The revision stands disposed of accordingly.