JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11-10-1983 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No 12/83 whereby he found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 450, 354 and 323 IPC and various sentences have been passed against him. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the report of the incident was lodged after 12 hours of the incident and that too after arrival of the police in the village on the information of the accused about his beating and at that time the statement of P.W. 1, Santra, was recorded and on that statement the case was registered against the appellant. The prosecution failed to give any explanation as to why the report was lodged after a delay of 12 hours. The information given by the accused about his beating was first in time. The case against the accused-appellant was registered merely to save themselves from the allegations made against the complainant party by the accused. 3. A look at the record shows that Smt. Santra was the aunt of the accused appellant and that she was having an advanced pregnancy. Moreover, the only allegation about offence of Section 354 IPC is that the appellant only touched the leg of Smt. Santra and by touching of the leg an inference of outraging the modesty of women cannot be drawn, as is observed in the case of S.P. Mallik v. State of Orissa and another (1982 Cr. L.J. page 19) . In this case it has been observed by their Lordships that merely by putting a hand by an accused on a belly of a female by itself could not be construed to indicate that the accused was using criminal force within the meaning of Section 354 IPC for the purpose of committing an offence or injury or annoyance. Therefore, the action of the accused could not be held to be an act of criminal with, intention and deliberate, but a pure accident. Hence, the action of the accused would not amount to an offence under Section 354 IPC when the basic ingredients of Section 354 IPC had not been proved Similar circumstances are of the present case. Therefore, the action of the accused could not be held to be an act of criminal with, intention and deliberate, but a pure accident. Hence, the action of the accused would not amount to an offence under Section 354 IPC when the basic ingredients of Section 354 IPC had not been proved Similar circumstances are of the present case. In these circumstances the learned trial Court erred in holding the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 354 IPC and the appellant is, therefore, entitled for his acquittal under Section 354 IPC. 4. As said earlier that the case against the complainant party was first to be registered on the information of the accused about his beating and the accused appellant sustained injuries wherein the same stand proved by Ex.P.7. The accused appellant has also proved in its defence that report Ex.P.8. has been lodged by him and on this report the police went in the village for investigation and at that time `parcha bayan'. of Smt. Santra was recorded and in that `parcha bayan' allegation of house trespass and beating have been made against the accused-appellant. I failed to understand that as to why the report of the incident has not been lodged immediately after the incident took place and why Smt. Santra waited for the arrival of the police in her village. In the presence of Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 it cannot be ruled out that a false case has been foisted by the prosecution against the accused-appellant, in order to save their skin from the allegations made by the accused-appellant. The explanation given by the accused-appellant in its report about the incident is probable and the defence taken by the accused has also been supported by P.W.5 and P W 6. 5. In view of the aforesaid circumstances when two versions are there and the prosecution have utterly failed to prove the genesis of the offence then in such a situation the case of the prosecution becomes highly doubtful, and the accused appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. 6. After going through the entire record and the evidence of the prosecution and the defence taken by the accused-appellant as discussed supra, I am of the view that the learned trial Court has erred in holding the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 354, 450 and 232 IPC. 7. 6. After going through the entire record and the evidence of the prosecution and the defence taken by the accused-appellant as discussed supra, I am of the view that the learned trial Court has erred in holding the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 354, 450 and 232 IPC. 7. Consequently, this appeal is, therefore, allowed and I set aside the judgment dated 11-10-1983 passed by Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu and accused-appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. The appellant is on bail and need not surrender. His bail bonds stand cancelled. *******