Judgment :- 1. State has preferred this appeal under S.377(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the enhancement of the sentence. The accused was originally convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge. Palghat for the offence punishable under S.376 read with S.511 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The Sessions Court. Palghat Division interfered with the finding of the trial court and altered the conviction and sentence. The accused has now been found guilty of offence under S.354 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months. The State seeks for enhancement of sentence. 2. The accused is alleged to have attempted to commit rape of Pw. I who was aged 131/2 years at the time of the occurrence. On 28-1-1984 at about 1 p. m. Pw. 1. Usha was collecting cow dung from a property known as Kurukkenkundu in Nochur village of Palghat District. The accused stealthily came near Pw.1 and lifted her and took her to a slope of hill and made her lie in the shade of a palmyra tree and attempted to rape her. Pw.1 made a hue and cry and Pws. 2 and 3 who have been residing near the scene of occurrence came to the spot and saw Pw.1 lying on the ground and the accused pressing his body against the body of Pw.1. Pws. 2 and 3 shouted at the accused to go away from the place. They threw a handful of mud at the accused and be collected his cloth and left the place. 3. Pw. 3 gave intimation regarding this incident to the mother of Pw. 1. In the evening Pw.1 was taken to the nearby Government Hospital. Alathur. Pw. 8 examined Pw.1 and issued Ext. P6 wound certificate. There was an abrasion of 2 x 1 cm. on the left knee and there were also complaints of pain on both cheeks and neck. No injuries were found on the private parts. Pw. 8 gave intimation to the Police and Pw. 10 the Circle Inspector of Police recorded the first information statement from Pw. 1. Pw. 10 took over the investigation. He prepared Ext. P4 scene mahazar. Clothes worn by Pw. No injuries were found on the private parts. Pw. 8 gave intimation to the Police and Pw. 10 the Circle Inspector of Police recorded the first information statement from Pw. 1. Pw. 10 took over the investigation. He prepared Ext. P4 scene mahazar. Clothes worn by Pw. I were taken into custody and on the next day the accused was arrested and he was sent for medical examination. Pw. 9. the doctor examined him and issued Ext. P8 potency certificate. 4. On the side of the prosecution Pws.1 to 13 were examined and out of these Pws. 1, 2 and 3 are the eye witnesses. The accused when questioned under S.313 Crl. P.C. stated that a false case has been foisted against him and he would say that on the date of incident Pw.1 had come to his property for collecting cowdung and the accused objected to her collecting this manure. She showered abusive words at him and then the accused rushed towards her and while so she bad fallen on the ground. 5. The Trial Court found that the offence of attempt of rape has been committed by the accused. mainly on the evidence of Pws.1 to 3. The lower appellate court found that no implicit reliance can be placed on the evidence of Pws.1 to 3. The court below was also of the opinion that Pw. I attempted to give an exaggerated version before court and evidence on record would only indicate that the offence under 354 alone has been committed by the accused. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the accused has committed the offence under S.376 read with S.511 and the court below should have convicted him for that offence. This appeal has been filed under S.377(1) of the Crl. P. C Even though under ground (F) in the appeal memorandum it has been mentioned that the conviction should have been for an attempt to the offence of rape it cannot be held that this appeal has been intended to alter the conviction. The appeal under S.377(1) of Crl. P. C. can only be confined to a question of adequacy of sentence. In an appeal filed under S.377(1) this Court is not competent to alter the conviction of the accused. The powers of the Appellate Court in an appeal for enhancement of sentence has been described in S.386(c) of the Code. The appeal under S.377(1) of Crl. P. C. can only be confined to a question of adequacy of sentence. In an appeal filed under S.377(1) this Court is not competent to alter the conviction of the accused. The powers of the Appellate Court in an appeal for enhancement of sentence has been described in S.386(c) of the Code. It reads as follows: S. 386 Powers of the Appellate Court: (c) in an appeal for enhancement of sentence (i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be re-tried by a Court competent to try the offence. or (ii) after the finding maintaining the sentence. or (iii) with or without altering the finding. alter the nature or the extent. or the nature and extent. of the sentence. so as to enhance or reduce the same; This has been made clear by the Supreme Court in the decision Eknath v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR. 1977 SC. 1177. In that decision it has been held that "In an appeal against inadequacy of sentence it is not permissible to alter the conviction to an aggravated category of offence for which the accused was not convicted. While the accused in such an appeal under S.377 can show that be is innocent of the offence. the prosecution is not entitled to show that he is guilty of a graver offence and on that basis the sentence should be enhanced. The prosecution will only be able to urge that the sentence is inadequate on the charge as found or even on an altered less graver charge." 7. The next question that would arise for consideration is whether the conviction of the appellant under S.354 of IPC. is sustainable. It has to be remembered that in an appeal filed under S.377 the respondent-accused is entitled to plea for acquittal by virtue of clause (3) of S.377. Pws.1 to 3 have deposed that the accused had caught her and she was lifted to a nearby slope and made her lie beneath a palmyra tree. In Ext. PI first information statement Pw. I gave a simple version of the incident. At the time of giving the evidence she has exaggerated the statement and for which she also gave explanation that she was really afraid at the time of giving first information. That explanation also cannot be accepted in toto. Ext. In Ext. PI first information statement Pw. I gave a simple version of the incident. At the time of giving the evidence she has exaggerated the statement and for which she also gave explanation that she was really afraid at the time of giving first information. That explanation also cannot be accepted in toto. Ext. P1 statement was given about 6 hours after the incident and subsequent statement if any given by Pw.1 could only be exaggerated version of the earlier incident. Pws.2 and 3 are admittedly related to the accused. The evidence of these witnesses also shows that they have attempted to give exaggerated version. Even then the evidence of these witnesses would go to show that some incident happened and that the accused made an armorous approach towards Pw.1. The bodily injury noted by Pw. 8 in Ext. P6 would also go to show that there was a physical assault on Pw.1 by the accused. 8. On a careful reappraisal of the evidence I feel that the appellant has been rightly convicted under 354. As regards the enhancement of the sentence the learned Public Prosecutor contended that in these types of offences the Court should give more deterrent punishment and then only the ends of justice would be met. Counsel for the accused submitted that the accused was an youngster at the time of the incident. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case. I am not inclined to enhance the sentence and the appeal filed by the State is only to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed.