JUDGMENT

Hon'ble EQBAL, J.—Leave granted.

2. State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this appeal by special leave against the judgment and order dated 2.11.2012 passed by learned Single Judge of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, who allowed the appeal, preferred by the Respondent-accused, in part maintaining his conviction but reducing six months sentence awarded by the trial court to the period (21 days) already undergone.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.1.2003, when the complainant was taking bath in her bathroom at around 10 AM, the accused-Respondent entered into her bathroom and caught hold of her hand with a bad intention and asked her to come inside. When the complainant refused, the accused with an intention to rape her, started dragging her out of the bathroom. When she screamed for help, two persons reached there and the accused fled away knocking down her on the ground for which she received injuries on her right elbow. Complainant's husband had gone to village Badoli for some work and upon his coming back, the complainant reached the police station along with him and lodged FIR. Upon her medical examination on the same day, following injury on the person of the complainant was found:

Abrasion measuring 1/2 x 1/4 c.m. on the back side of the upper right forearm along with slight blood clots.

4. The accused-Respondent was arrested on 29.1.2003 and the case was committed to Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Guna, who after scrutinizing the evidence available on record and after hearing the contentions of both sides, convicted the Respondent for the offences punishable Under Sections 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'Indian Penal Code') sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 500/-.

5. Being aggrieved, the Respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court, where the accused did not challenge his conviction but prayed for reduction of awarded sentence. Maintaining his conviction, the High Court reduced his sentence to the period already undergone holding that the accused is first offender, fine amount has already been deposited and he has already undergone for 21 days.

6. Dissatisfied with the order of the High Court, State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this appeal raising issue whether the period of sentence for the offence punishable Under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code can be reduced to the period undergone for only 21 days just on the ground that the Respondent is first time offender and is facing trial since 2003.

7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties appearing on either side.

8. It has been contended on behalf of the State that learned Single Judge of the High Court has failed to correctly analyze the act of the Respondent through which he tried to outrage modesty of a woman. High Court has failed to correctly appreciate that the trial court has already taken lenient view by awarding sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and reduction of sentence to the period of 21 days with respect to the offences which deal with the aspect of outraging the modesty of the woman, would reduce the deterrent effect of the punishment provided under the Code for such offences.

9. Per contra, it has been submitted on behalf of the Respondent that he was only 19 years old at the time of incident and he has already undergone physical incarceration for 24 days and mental incarceration suffered for last 10 years. The Respondent has two children and has no criminal antecedent earlier to the alleged incident or after the incident and he is also entitled to the benefit of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been further submitted that no minimum sentence has been prescribed Under Section 354, Indian Penal Code.

10. Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code deals with assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty and, as such, is reproduced hereunder:

354: Assault or criminal force to woman w