' Khan Muhammad petitioner was tried by Magistrate 1st Class, Jauharabad under section 354, P.P.C. for criminal assault on Mst. Alim Khatoon to outrage her modesty. He was convicted under section 354, P.P.C. and sentenced to one year R.I. His appeal failed on 13-9-1984, hence this revision.
2. The learned counsel submits that there is a delay of about 20 days in lodging the F.I.R.; that the prosecution witnesses are interested and that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.
3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that Mst. Alim Khatoon P.W.1 stated that on the eventful day, the petitioner had caught hold of her breast. Her statement finds support from evidence of Ghulam Muhammad P.W.2. The witnesses appear to be quite independent. They have successfully stood the test of cross-examination. The mere relationship of Ghulam Muhammad with Mst. Alim Khatoon is not sufficient to discard his testimony. I do not see any inherent infirmity in the statements of these witnesses. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. having been explained in the F.I.R. as well as in the evidence, it is not a case of unexplained delay. The defence evidence of Ahmad Khan D.W.1 and Ghulam Muhammad D.W.2, who stated that no such occurrence ever took place is not sufficient to rebut the4prosecution case because these witnesses were not present near the spot at the time of occurrence. The judgment of the trial Court is neither perverse nor illegal. For all these reasons, I am convinced that no case of interference with the impugned judgments, in exercise of the revision powers of this Court, is made out.
4. This brings me to the question of sentence. Since the petitioner is not a previous convict and the prosecution case is that the offence was committed in retaliation, I feel inclined to reduce the sentence of one year's R.I. to six months' R.I.