Judgment A. K. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. ( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th February, 1981 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 19/80, State v. Rajendra. By the aforesaid judgment, the accused appellant was convicted under Section 450 and 354 I. P. C. and he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- and further rigorous imprisonment for three months for default in payment of fine for the offence under Section 450 I. P. C. and rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and further rigorous imprisonment for one month for default in payment of fine for the offence under Section 354 I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case may be briefly summarised as below :-ON 5th October, 1979 at 9 a. m. Balram gave oral first information report at Police Station, Chunawat. The information give by Balram was recorded on Ex. P/1. According to First Information Report Ex. P/1, in the evening of 4th October, 1979, Balram was playing Kabaddi at a distance of one and a half Bigha from his house. His wife was present at the house. At about 9 p. m. Hari Ram, went to Balram and told him that Rajendra was trying to outrage the modesty of his wife at his house. On receiving this information from Hari Ram, Balram immediately proceeded towards his house. When he was at a distance of 5-6 paces of house, he saw Rajendra coming out of his house. At that time several persons had collected near the house of the complainant. Balrams wife told Balram that she was sleeping on a cot in the courtyard of the house and at that time Rajendra Bishnoi entered the house and after entering into the house Rajendra caught her arm and asked her to go inside the Kotha and told her that he would do the evil act with her. Balrams wife further told Balram that she raised an alarm and on hearing the alarm, ladies from the neighbourhood reached the spot. Meanwhile, accused had forcibly taken her to the "baarna" but she liberated herself and when several males and females reached the spot, the accused ran away. Balrams wife further told Balram that she raised an alarm and on hearing the alarm, ladies from the neighbourhood reached the spot. Meanwhile, accused had forcibly taken her to the "baarna" but she liberated herself and when several males and females reached the spot, the accused ran away. In the First Information Report it was further stated that the shirt, which Balrams wife was putting on at the time of incident was torn. On the basis of the First Information Report given by Balbeer, the police registered a case under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code and commenced investigation. After conducting investigation, the police submitted a charg-sheet in the Court of learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, who committed the case to the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. ( 4 ) THE learned District and Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar framed charges under Section 450 and 354 I. P. C. against the accused (appellant ). The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. The prosecution examined Beerma P. W. 1, Balram P. W. 2, Raja Ram P. W. 3 and Kashi Ram P. W. 4 in support of the prosecution case. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. He examined Nanu Devi D. W. 1, Aad Ram D. W. 2, Mani Ram D. W. 3 and Jaimal Ram D. W. 4 in defence. The learned Sessions Judge after taking in to consideration the evidence produced by the parties and hearing the arguments made by the parties, came to the conclusion that the charges against the accused were established beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore, convicted the appellant under Sections 450 and 354 I. P. C. and sentenced him as mentioned above. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution evidence is untrustworthy and that the accused has been falsely implicated on account of strained relations and that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error by convicting and sentencing the accused. He has, therefore, prayed that the appeal should be allowed and the appellant should be acquitted of both the charges. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the conviction as well as the sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. He has, therefore, prayed that the appeal should be allowed and the appellant should be acquitted of both the charges. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the conviction as well as the sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. ( 6 ) I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant the learned Public Prosecutor, the evidence produced by the parties and the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for convicting the accused appellant. ( 7 ) THE prosecution examined only four witnesses, namely Smt. Beerma P. W. 1, Balram P. W. 2, Raja Ram P. W. 3 and Kashi Ram P. W. 4 to prove the charges levelled against the appellant. Smt. Beerma P. W. 1 is the wife of Balram and she is main witness in the case, because according to prosecution story the accused entered the house of Balram with the intention to commit rape on Smt. Beerma. Balram P. W. 2 is the author of the first information report and husband of Smt. Beerma P. W. 1, Raja Ram P. W. 3 is the father of Balram. He rushed towards the spot on bearing the alarm raised by Smt. Beerma. He saw the accused Rajendra coming out of the house of Balram and he was told by Smt. Beerma that Rajendra had entered the house with the object of outraging her modesty. Kanshi Ram P. W. 4 is the Police Officer who recorded the first information report lodged by Balram, conducted the investigation and recovered a shirt, which was torn and submitted the case to the Station House Officer of the Police Station, who submitted the challan. The accused has denied the allegations and stated that on account of a quarrel relating to water, Balram and Raja Ram had given evidence against him. ( 8 ) NANU Devi D. W. 1, Aad Ram D. W. 2, Mani Ram D. W. 3 and Jaimal Ram D. W. 4 have deposed that they did not hear any alarm or hue and cry being raised at the house of Balram. Aad Ram D. W. 2 has further added that the relations between Balram and Rajendra were in tension on account of water. Jaimal Ram D. W. 4 has stated that nobody plays Kabaddi in his village and that there is no enmity between Balram and Rajendra. Aad Ram D. W. 2 has further added that the relations between Balram and Rajendra were in tension on account of water. Jaimal Ram D. W. 4 has stated that nobody plays Kabaddi in his village and that there is no enmity between Balram and Rajendra. ( 9 ) IN this case the evidence produced by the prosecution consists of the statement of Smt. Beerma P. W. 1, who is the victim of the alleged offence and the circumstantial evidence, which is to the effect that the accused appellant Rajendra was seen coming out of the house of Balram soon after the raising of alarm by Smt. Beerma. Smt. Beerma P. W. 1 has stated that in the night of occurrence at about 9 p. m. she was lying in her courtyard. At that time accused Rajendra entered her house, dragged her by holding her hand and asked her to go inside the Kotha and stated that he would commit evil act with her and threatened to shoot her. Smt. Beerma P. W. 1 has further added that when she tried to liberate herself her shirt was torn and on her raising an alarm, Nanu Devi, Kalawati, Hari Ram, her husband and her father-in-law reached the spot and at that time Rajendra ran away. She has further added that she told her husband about the incident and next day in the morning her husband went to the Police Station. She identified the shirt (Article 1) which according to her was torn during the incident. Smt. Beerma P. W. 1 has been cross-examined at length. In her cross-examination she has stated that she did not receive any injury, nor her bangles were broken and that the accused did not pinch at any part of her body and that on her raising the alarm, Nanu Devi was the first person, who reached the spot and Kalawati and her father-in-law reached at the time when the accused was running away from the house. ( 10 ) I have carefully considered the evidence of Smt. Beerma P. W. 1. There is nothing in her statement to justify the conclusion that she has given a false statement. ( 11 ) BALARM P. W. 2 is the husband of Smt. Beerma P. W. 1. ( 10 ) I have carefully considered the evidence of Smt. Beerma P. W. 1. There is nothing in her statement to justify the conclusion that she has given a false statement. ( 11 ) BALARM P. W. 2 is the husband of Smt. Beerma P. W. 1. He has supported the version given in the first information report and added that at the time of incident, he was playing Kabaddi and Nanu Devi went to him and told that Rajendra was outraging the modesty of his wife. He then, ran towards his house and when he was at a distance of two paces from his house, he saw Rajendra running out of the house and his wife was raising an alarm and several persons of the neighbourhood had collected there. It is also stated by Balram P. W. 2 that when he inquired from his wife (Smt. Beerma) she told him that when Rajendra attempted to forcibly take her (towards the Kotha), she raised an alarm and that he had seen that the shirt of his wife was torn. Balram P. W. 2 has further added that he had lodged the first information report Ex. P/1 and that the shirt of his wife had been taken by the police. In his cross-examination, he has reiterated that he had seen the accused running away from a distance of 1-2 paces. It is also stated by him that Aad Ram had caught the accused and Brija Bishnoi at that time inflicted a lathi blow on Aad Ram, and therefore, he did not make attempt to apprehend the accused. It is also stated by Balram P. W. 2 in cross-examination that he had requested the villagers to accompany him to the police station, but nobody was ready to go to the Police Station with him. He has denied any enmity with the accused. ( 12 ) IN my opinion, the statement of Balram P. W. 2 could not be shaken in the cross-examination and his statement supports the statement of Smt. Beerma P. W. 1. He has denied any enmity with the accused. ( 12 ) IN my opinion, the statement of Balram P. W. 2 could not be shaken in the cross-examination and his statement supports the statement of Smt. Beerma P. W. 1. ( 13 ) RAJA Ram P. W. 3 has stated that on bearing the alarm raised by the wife of Balram, he rushed towards the house of Balbeer and saw the accused running away from the house of Balbeer and when he inquired from the wife of Balbeer as to what happened, she told that Rajendra had entered her house with a view to take her honour. At that time Balram also reached the spot. The statement of Raja Ram P. W. 3 could not be shaken in cross-examination. ( 14 ) KASHI Ram P. W. 4 is the Police Officer, who recorded the first information report Ex. P/1 and conducted the investigation. He has proved the site-plan Ex. P/3 and the Inspection Note Ex. P/3a and added that he had recovered the shirt, which was torn on the front side. The prosecution evidence has not been shown to be false and in my opinion the statement of Smt. Beerma P. W. 1, Balbeer P. W. 2 and Raja Ram P. W. 3 is reliable. The denial by the accused is therefore of no consequence and the negative evidence of Nanu Devi D. W. 1, Aad Ram D. W. 2, Mani Ram D. W. 3 and Jaimal Ram D. W. 4 is of little help to the accused petitioner. The statement made by the learned counsel for the accused that Nanu Devi D. W. 1 has not supported the prosecution story, and therefore, the prosecution case should be discarded as unreliable, does not appear to be acceptable. Because no effect has been made to prove that Nanu Devi D. W. 1 is the same person, who according to Balram P. W. 2 went to him to tell that the accused was trying outraging modesty of his wife. It has been admitted by Jaimal Ram D. W. 4 that there was no enmity between Balram and the accused Rajendra. Balram has also denied any enmity with the accused. It has been admitted by Jaimal Ram D. W. 4 that there was no enmity between Balram and the accused Rajendra. Balram has also denied any enmity with the accused. In these circumstances, there is no reason why Smt. Beerma P. W. 1, Balram P. W. 2 and Raja Ram P. W. 3 should have concocted a false story involving the honour of Balrams wife Smt. Beerma P. W. 1. The learned District and Sessions Judge has not committed any mistake by placing reliance on the statement of the prosecution witnesses. ( 15 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, the submission that the charges framed against the accused have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt is without merit. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sentence imposed on the accused is harsh; that the offence had been committed in the year 1979, when the accused only 25 years old and after the expiry of 18 years it will not serve the ends of justice if the accused is sent to Jail. The endorsement made by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar on the warrant of commitment to Jail shows that the accused remained in police custody on 24th October, 1979 and in the judicial custody from 24th October, 1979 to 31st October, 1979. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears to be just and proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period for which the accused remained in judicial custody and to enhance the fine imposed on the accused under Sections 354 and 450 I. P. C. The sentence imposed by the learned District and Sessions Judge on the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 450 and 354 I. P. C. is hereby altered and the accused is hereby sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period he remained in judicial custody during trial. The fine imposed on the appellant is hereby enhanced. The accused shall pay fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence punishable under Section 354 I. P. C. and undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for default in payment of fine. The fine imposed on him under Section 450 I. P. C. is hereby enhanced to Rs. 4000/- and the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for default in payment of fine. 2000/- for the offence punishable under Section 354 I. P. C. and undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for default in payment of fine. The fine imposed on him under Section 450 I. P. C. is hereby enhanced to Rs. 4000/- and the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for default in payment of fine. The appellant is hereby given 15 days time to deposit the amount of fine imposed on him under Sections 450 and 354 I. P. C. , failing which the learned Sessions Judge shall issue a warrant of arrest against the appellant to compel his appearance and after his appearance or arrest, as the case may be commit him to Jail so that he may serve out the sentences awarded to him for default in payment of fine. Order accordingly.