ORDER :

Heard Mr. Kumar Nilesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Bandana Bharti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.01.2005 passed by 1st Class Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No.3263 of 2000, corresponding to T.R. No.319 of 2005, arising out of Putki P.S. Case No.124 of 2000.

3. The petitioner has been convicted to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for offence under Sections 354 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 341 of the IPC.

4. Petitioner has also challenged the order of learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad dated 8.05.2009 passed in Cr. Appeal No.36 of 2005 confirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 341/354 of Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Arguments of the petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below and accordingly he is confining his arguments on the point of sentence. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has already remained in custody for a period of about three months, out of maximum sentence of six months. So far as the sentence in connection with offence under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same has already been served and so far as the offence under Section 354 of IPC is concerned, half of the sentence has been served by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the date of occurrence in the present case is 4.01.2000 and at that point of time, there was no minimum sentence, as such, prescribed for the offence under Section 354 of IPC. Learned counsel submits that the Judgment of Trial Court was pronounced on 31.01.2005 and on that date, as per the judgment of the trial court, the petitioner was 32 years of age and now the petitioner is about 48 years of age. Learned counsel submits that if the time is calculated from the date of occurrence, more than 20 years has elapsed and the petitioner has served half sentence for long time and has been sufficiently punished. He submits that considering this aspect of the matter, the sentence of the petitioner may be modified. He also submits that if this Court finds proper, some fine amount/victim compensation may be imposed. Learned counsel also submits that as per the evidences on record, the petitioner appears to be a relative of the victim and the occurrence had taken place, when the victim had gone to the village tank to take bath and as per the allegation, the petitioner had accosted her and started teasing her and when she raised alarm, the husband of the informant and others had arrived at that place. Learned counsel submits that although the allegation was made that the petitioner had snatched the earring and fled away, but no charge was ever framed against the petitioner on such allegations. Learned counsel submits that the records of the case do not indicate any criminal antecedent against the petitioner.

Arguments of the State

6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and has submitted that there are concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below, which is supported by the evidence on record and accordingly she submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments, calling any interference in revision jurisdiction.

7. It is further not in dispute that the alleged offence relates to the period of year 2000 and at that point of time, there was no minimum sentence, as such, prescribed for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. Learned counsel for the State submits that so far as modification of sentence is concerned, it is up to the Court to consider on the facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate order. Learned counsel further submitted tha