JUDGMENT 1. - Mr. B. Advani, learned counsel for the appellant fairly and frankly submitted that his client cannot escape punishment under s. 354 I.P.C., but since he has already undergone sentence of imprisonment for one year and 7 months, it would meet the ends of justice if he is released on the sentence of imprisonment already undergone. 2. The appellant has filed this appeal against his conviction under S. 376 I.P.C. The prosecution case was that he committed rape on a lady Mst. Champa who was deaf, dumb and mad in the field at about 10 A.M. on September 8. 1984. 3. The trial court has found this fact to be proved on the basis of the evidence of her mother Mst. Cheni as Mst. Champa could not give any evidence. There is no other direct evidence on the point. 4. Mr. Advani's contention in this aspect of the case is that Dr. Kamla Jain DW 1 has clearly stated that the possibility of any rape is ruled-out from the medical examination of the lady. 5. I have examined the record of the case. It is true that Dr. Kamla Jain has clearly stated that any possibility of rape on this lady at the relevant time is ruled out. She found no injury on the private parts of Mst. Champa. The rupture of the hymen was old one and she was habituated to sexual intercourse. From the vaginal smear, on examination it was found that there are no spermatozoa. There were no signs of semen. Ex. P. 1 the report of Dr. Kamla Jain is as under:- "There is no injury on private parts & no seminal & blood stains on clothes. Rs - Hymen is ruptured (old). PV:- Cx 9 Ut RURF NS. F Mobill PV is free. Vaginal smear is prepared and sent for examination in laboratory. N.P. report - No spermatozoa seen. Opinion:-There is no evidence of sexual intercourse." 6. The trial court has stated that from the vaginal smear no spermatozoa was found because the medical examination was conducted on the second day, but I find it difficult to accept. 7. In any case when Dr. Kamla Jain repeatedly ruled out the possibility of rape it is difficult to convict the accused for the offence of rape as he is entitled to benefit of doubt, so far as the offence of concerned. 8. 7. In any case when Dr. Kamla Jain repeatedly ruled out the possibility of rape it is difficult to convict the accused for the offence of rape as he is entitled to benefit of doubt, so far as the offence of concerned. 8. However, there is no doubt that the accused fell on the body of Mst. Champa and committed the offence of outraging the modesty of Mst. Champa, and, therefore, he is guilty of offence under s. 354 I.P.C. 9. The result is that this appeal is partially accepted to this extent that the accused is acquitted for the offence under s. 376 I.P.C. He is convicted for offence under s. 354 IPC. and sentenced to imprisonment of one year and 8 months.Appeal partly allowed. *******