JUDGMENT :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved of the judgment dated 20.07.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar in Sessions Case No. 15/1995, whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 1 year alongwith a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 1 month's simple imprisonment.

2. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the case are that on 03.11.1994 at about 07.30 a.m. Mrs. Prema wife of Bishna Ram made an oral complaint at the Police Station Nohar to the effect that on 01.11.1994 in the night at about 10.00 p.m. she was sleeping in the house with her children. Her husband has gone to Elanabad for employment. She woke up hearing the sound of opening the door, upon which she found the accused Bishna Ram in the house who caught her hand, bit on her hand and face and tried to outrage her modesty. Hearing the hue and cry, her brother-in-law Lalchand came. He called the husband of Prema, who could reach on the next day due to unavailability of means of transport. She told him about the incident. Due to threat given by Bishna Ram, they did not lodge the report on 02.11.1994.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid report FIR No. 339/1994 for the offences under Sections 376, 511 and 457 of the IPC was registered and investigation was commenced. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present appellant.

4. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant for the offence under Section 376/511 of the IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial as many as 4 witnesses were examined and various documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to be falsely implicated in the case. However, he did not choose to produce any evidence in defence. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above vide judgment dated 20.07.1995, which is under assail before this court in the instant appeal.

5. After arguing on merits to some extent, learned counsel for the appellant does not wish to press the present appeal in respect of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and preferred to make submissions on the point of sentence only. He submits that the incident is of the year 1994. The appellant was 27 years of age at that time. At present is 56 years of age. It was the first criminal case registered against him. He had no criminal antecedents. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct in the impugned judgment. He has faced the rigor of criminal case for good 29 years and has languished in jail for around 6 days during trial, therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone.

6. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that the appellant has remained behind the bars for some time and that the incident is very old and much time has already gone by since then.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public prosecutor and perused the record and other material available on the record.

8. Since the appeal against conviction is not presse