Short Note : In Sessions Trial No.2 of 1974, the Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore convicted the appellant Ratansingh for offence under section 366/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to 3 year's rigorous imprisonment. It is against that conviction and sentence that this appeal has been filed. The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the other 2 accused. 2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that on 15-5-1973 Saurambai (PW 1) had gone to take bath in the river along with Gulabbai (PW 4) and Dhapubai (PW 5). The appellant and the other 2 acquitted accused were also at the river. The two acquitted accused were sitting while the appellant was taking his bath in the river. The appellant during that bath in river got his back massage by Dhapubai (PW 5), a woman aged about 25 years. Appellant suggested to Dhapubai (PW 5) not to take Saurambai (PW 1) along with them and leave her behind. 3. However, on their way back Saurambai (PW 1) was walking in between Dhapubai (PW 5) and Gulabbai (PW 4) of whom Dhapubai was ahead of Saurambai while Gulabbai was following her. When these three had covered a short distance appellant came there and caught hold of Saurambai by her hand. Gulabbai (PW 4) caught hold of Saurambai by her other hand. Appellant abused her and gave her a kick, as a result of which Gulab Bai (PW 4) fell down. It is then alleged that all the accused including the appellant tock her to a nearby Nala where she was raped by them. Further details in that behalf are not necessary because the accused were neither committed for an offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, nor were they tried for the offence at the trial. 4. Held: So far as the question of the appellant having caught hold of Saurambai by her hand is concerned she stands corroborated by the evidence of Gulabbai (PW 4). Gulabbai (PW 4) has stated that while they were returning appellant had caught hold the hand of Saurambai but because of Sauram Bai having shouted he left her. Dhapubai (PW 5) was admittedly going ahead of Saurambai who was followed by Gulabbai (PW 4). Dhapubai (PW 5) who was cross-examined by the prosecution does not state about the appellant having caught the hand of Saurambai. Dhapubai (PW 5) was admittedly going ahead of Saurambai who was followed by Gulabbai (PW 4). Dhapubai (PW 5) who was cross-examined by the prosecution does not state about the appellant having caught the hand of Saurambai. May be that she being ahead, she could not see the appellant catching hold of the hand of Sauram Bai (PW 1). 5. Chhatarsingh (PW 8) has stated that while Saurambai was coming toward the river she had been saying that her honour had been taken, at which the Sarpanch had told to lodge the report in the police station. Bapu singh (PW 9) who also was cross-examined by the prosecution stated that the appellant had caught hold of the hand of Saurambai. He further stated that he had taken her to the river. However, Saurambai (PW 1) being taken to the river finds no corroboration and that part of hi s evidence deserves to be rejected. In his cross-examination he stated that Sub-Inspector had beaten him and compelled him to name the other two ac quitted accused also. This however is not relevant so far as the appellant is concerned. Narbadsingh (PW 10) was also cross-examined by the prosecution. He stated that when he was in his Khala prosecutrix had shouted that Ratansingh had caught hold of her. 6. Thus, the prosecutrix stands sufficiently corroborated so far as her allegation about the appellant having caught hold of her hand is concerned. It is in the evidence of Gulabbai (PW 4) that the appellant, on an objection by the prosecutrix had immediately left her hand. In the circumstances as they are it would not be safe to infer conclusively that the appellant by catching hold of Saurambai by her hand intended to forcibly take her away for illicit intercourse or he had that object in view. The conviction of the appellant under section 366/511 of the Indian Penal Code cannot therefore be upheld. Hon. Mudholkar J. in State of Punjab v. Majorsingh (AIR 1967, SC 63) observed that when any act done to or in the presence of a women is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind the act must fall within the mischief of section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Hon. Mudholkar J. in State of Punjab v. Majorsingh (AIR 1967, SC 63) observed that when any act done to or in the presence of a women is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind the act must fall within the mischief of section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. In the instant case the facts and the circumstances clearly make out that the appellant had the culpable intention when he caught hold of the hand of Saurambai which is the crux of the matter. For these reasons, I am of opinion that the offence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code stands proved beyond doubt against the appellant. 7. So far as the question of sentence is concerned a lenient view in the circumstances is called for. The prosecutrix with the other two lady witnesses were at the river. The appellant along with his other associates were also at the river. There is evidence to indicate that some light talks were going on in between the ladies on the one hand and the appellant on the other. It is possible because of those circumstances that Gulabbai (PW 4) in para 3 of her statement voluntarily stated that in such matters the fault is not with the men but with the women. It appears that some conduct on the part of Sauram Bai (PW 1) encouraged the appellant to catch hold of her hand. 8. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant for an offence under section 366/511 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside. Instead he is found guilty under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. I find from the record that during investigation the appellant for a few days was in custody before he was bailed out. He was in custody after his conviction and sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge till he was bailed out in pursuance of the order, dated 29-3-1974 of this Court. Under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant shall be entitled to a set-off. For these reasons, in may opinion, it would not be expedient to sent him back to jail. The sentence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code will be that which he has already undergone. AIR 1967 S. C. 63 relied on. Appeal partly allowed.