R. M. RUSTOGI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal, filed by the appellant Raju Rajkumar, is directed against the judgment, order of conviction and sentence passed on 11. 1. 1983 in Sessions Trial No. 98/81, by the learned Sessions Judge, Shehdol, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 months under section 354, I. P. C. The appellant was tried under section 376, I. P. C. but the conviction and sentence were recorded as aforesaid. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, in short, is that on 18. 8. 1981, at about 8. 00 a. m. the prosecutrix Mst. Chhotibai (R W 1) had gone to a rivulet near the township of Rajendragram to take her bath and to fetch water by a pitcher, The appellant was already taking his bath there. Seeing her, the appellant tried to engage her in conversation, but she made no response. He then advanced two notes of Rs. 50/- each towards her and asked her to keep them. Again, she paid no attention to it and she continued cleaning her pitcher. The appellant put those 2 notes near her and caught her by the back from behind and threw her on the ground and mounted on her. She cried that this boy was molesting her. The appellant gagged her by her Sari. He stripped her naked by removing her Sari and committed sexual intercourse with her. Her Sari was soiled by his semen. She could not offer any resistance as she was weak due to her delivery of 2 months past. Her cries had attracted Sukhlal (P. W. 3) to the spot. The appellant, seeing Sukhlal (P. W. 3) coming there, fled away towards the hospital. In the meantime, her husband Ram Prasad (P. W. 9) had also reached there and she narrated the incident to him. Immediately she went to the police station and lodged the F. I. R. at 8. 45 a. m. , vide Ex. P-i. ( 3 ) AS the F. I. R. , Ex. P-i, had not made and mention about the sexual intercourse crime (being crime No. 115/81) was registered under section 354. The prosecutrix made an application to the Tahsildar Shri Satendra Kumar Saxena (P. W. 13) on 24. 8. 1981, vide Ex. D. 4. 45 a. m. , vide Ex. P-i. ( 3 ) AS the F. I. R. , Ex. P-i, had not made and mention about the sexual intercourse crime (being crime No. 115/81) was registered under section 354. The prosecutrix made an application to the Tahsildar Shri Satendra Kumar Saxena (P. W. 13) on 24. 8. 1981, vide Ex. D. 4. wherein she had made the allegation for the first time that the appellant had committed intercourse with her. Thereafter, the offence under section 376, I. P. C. , was registered and investigation started. The appellant was duly committed to the court of session and the learned sessions judge, after holding the trial, reached the conclusion that no rape was committed on the prosecutrix and recorded the acquittal of the appellant under section 376, I. P. C. Instead, the appellant was found guilty of the offence of outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix and be was convicted and sentenced under section 354, I. P. C. , as aforesaid. ( 4 ) THE appellant has denied his guilt. According to him, he had left his clothes and wrist watch on the Zhiria and had gone nearby to answer the call of nature. After a short while when he returned back, he found his wrist watch missing and the prosecutrix was there taking her bath. He had asked her about his missing wrist watch. He had offered her even money in lieu of the watch. When she denied theft. he reported the matter to the police. In these circumstances, he was falsely implicated. He was also severely beaten by the husband of the prosecutrix 3 days after the incident. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has not seriously assailed the conviction of the appellant under section 354. I. P. C. His submission is that the appellant be released on probation of good conduct under the Probation of Offenders Act. 1958. ( 6 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has rightly recorded the finding of acquittal under section 376, I. P. C. He has held that the story of rape was an embellishment done to aggravate the offence. But there is enough material on record to sustain the conviction under section 354, Indian Penal Code. The appellant, who admits his presence on the spot. had made advances towards the prosecutrix. He had offered her Rs. But there is enough material on record to sustain the conviction under section 354, Indian Penal Code. The appellant, who admits his presence on the spot. had made advances towards the prosecutrix. He had offered her Rs. 100/- and then he had caught her by the back and threw her on the ground. Nothing beyond it had happened because the prosecutrix had protested and had cried for help which had attracted Sukial (P. W. 3) to the spot and her husband Ram Prasad (P. W. 9) and her brother-in-law Kuer Singh (P. W. 5) had also, in the mean-time, reached there. All these witnesses had seen the appellant running away from the place of occurrence towards the hospital. The matter was immediately reported to the police vide F. I. R. Ex. P I, wherein it was only mentioned that the appellant had offered her money had caught her by the back and pulled her down on the ground to molest her. To repeat there was no mention in the F. I. R. that intercourse was committed with her. On the next day, on 19. 8. 1981, the Forest Nursery Extension Officer. H. N. Singh (P. W. 10) had also recorded the statement of the prosecutrix as per Ex. p 9 (the prosecutrix was a labourer in the nursery ). Therein also the prosecutrix had repeated what she had stated in her F. I. R. ( 7 ) THE deposition of the prosecutrix, her prompt F. I. R. Ex. P I, her statement Ex. p 9, recorded a day after the incident, and the testimony of Sukhlal (P. W. 3) Kuer Singh (P. W. 5) and Ram Prasad (P. W 9) proved beyond doubt that the appellant had indulged in acts which amounted to outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix. An act suggestive of sex to woman amounts to outraging her modesty. as the essence of a womans modesty is her sex. The offence under section 354, I. P. C. , is amply proved by the material on record and the conviction there under is upheld. ( 8 ) THE learned Sessions Judge also had considered the question of granting the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and had rejected the prayer made on behalf of the appellant. I entirely agree with the learned Sessions Judge. ( 8 ) THE learned Sessions Judge also had considered the question of granting the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and had rejected the prayer made on behalf of the appellant. I entirely agree with the learned Sessions Judge. This is not a case where benefit could be accorded to the appellant under the Probation of Offenders Act. The prosecutrix is an Adivasi woman and such incidents cannot be treated very leniently. But, it is also on the record that 3 days after the incident, the appellant, was given a good thrashing by the husband of the prosecutrix and he is being prosecuted for that alleged offence under section 326, I. P. C. The appellant has been facing these proceedings for the last 6 years. In these circumstances, a sentence of fine would be adequate. Therefore, the sentence of R. I. for 4 months is set aside, and instead, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -. In case of default of payment of fine, he would undergo R. I. for 2 months. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal dismissed with modification in sentence. .