Prolonged pendency justified reducing the Section 354 IPC sentence to the period already undergone.

The complainant, Ishrad Jahan, reported that on 4 January 2010, while returning home near Hussaini Masjid, Bilaspur, the applicant approached her in a car, asked her to accompany him, and pulled her towards the vehicle by holding her hand. Her mother and another person intervened, after which the applicant and his associates fled

An FIR was registered under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed against the applicant and two co-accused

The Trial Court convicted the applicant under Section 354 IPC but acquitted the two co-accused

The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, on 30 April 2012

Before the High Court, the applicant did not challenge the conviction; he sought reduction of sentence on the ground that he had already undergone approximately 53 days’ imprisonment and had paid the fine

The Court applied Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning assault or use of criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty.

It also exercised its revisional jurisdiction to examine the legality and correctness of the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court

The Court recognised that, even while affirming conviction, the sentence may be suitably modified when the circumstances of the case, the period already undergone, the prolonged pendency of proceedings, and the ends of justice so require

The procedural record also reflected the application of Section 34 IPC at the charging stage and examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

The High Court found that the testimony of the complainant and her mother, together with the other material on record, supported the applicant’s conviction under Section 354 IPC.

Both lower courts had properly considered the evidence and had concurrently recorded findings of guilt; consequently, no illegality or infirmity was found warranting interference with the conviction

On sentence, the Court considered that the applicant had already undergone approximately 53 days’ imprisonment, deposited the fine, and had faced criminal proceedings for more than 16 years from the commencement of the trial and during the pendency of the revision

In these circumstances, the Court held that further incarceration would serve no useful purpose and that the period already undergone, coupled with the prolonged criminal ordeal, would meet the ends of justice

A copy of the order and the original records were directed to be transmitted to the Trial Court for information and compliance