( 1 ) THIS criminal revision takes an exception to the judgment and order of conviction dated 20-6-2002 passed by the 1st Additional sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1995 whereby she dismissed the appeal and reduced the substantive sentence from six months rigorous imprisonment to 15 days rigorous imprisonment by maintaining the substantive sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- awarded by the trial Court and in default the applicant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts are required to be stated as under : on 10-1-1985 complainant Kusum (P. W. 1) and her husband Manikrao choudhary (P. W. 3) along with their kids had come to village Adasa in the fair and they had started one hotel there for the purpose of earning money. In the night, this couple along with their children went to take a shelter in a chhapri for night halt. Kusum was sleeping on one side, her husband and kids were sleeping by her side. At about 12 O'clock in the night, the applicant/accused had entered into the bed of Kusum and started fondling her breast and also inserted his hand in the pubic region of Kusum. Consequently she woke up and caught hold the hands of the accused and raised an alarm. Her husband woke up and the accused was caught then and there and was taken to police station Saoner where the prosecutrix lodged the first information report (Ex. 15), on the basis of which crime No. 5/85 for the offence punishable under section 354 of Indian Penal code was registered. On completion of investigation the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of learned J. M. F. C.

( 3 ) ONLY three witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, namely prosecutrix Kusum (P. W. 1), Baliram (P. W. 2) and her husband Manik (P. W. 3 ). The learned Magistrate on appreciation of the evidence has recorded the finding that the prosecution has successfully proved that the accused did commit an offence punishable under section 354 of Indian Penal Code and consistent with this finding he sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. This judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned magistrate was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal no. 60 of 1995. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge on hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on re-appreciation of the evidence confirmed the finding of the learned Magistrate that the accused has outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix but she was of the view that the sentence is liable to be modified in the given facts and circumstances. Therefore, she dismissed the appeal and modified the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months to fifteen days rigorous imprisonment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge maintained the sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- and directed that in default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. This order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is under challenge in this revision.

( 4 ) MR. Thomas, learned counsel, for the applicant contended that the prosecutrix has mentioned in her report the specific words "chhedkhani karu lagla and except these words, she did not state the details of alleged chhedkhani. The learned Magistrate has, not attached any importance to the exaggerations that have been brought in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix and moreover her husband being an interested witness is bound to support her version. He contended that the testimony of the interested witness along with the shaky evidence of the prosecutrix is liable to be discarded and the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. In support of these submissions, he relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Hanuman vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 1614 wherein it has been held that the prosecutrix has somewhat exaggerated the story and the b