JUDGMENT Appellant Pillaram has been convicted under section 354 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to find of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months, for using criminal force on Kayabai (PW 1) with intent to outrage her modesty. The prosecution case was that on 28.9.1986 at about 1.30 p.m. complainant Kayabai (PW 1) was in her field in village Barapipar, Police Station Dabhra, District Bilaspur She was alone. Accused Pillaram came to her and made an overture that he wants to have sexual intercourse with her. He took her to a nearby trac, made her fall on the ground and committed rape on her, she cried. Her aunt-in-law Dewantibai (PW 2) reached there and she saw the accused committing rape on Kayabai (PW 1). She lodged the report Ex. P-2 at Dabhra Police Station on 28.9.1996 at 5.30 P.M. and this report was however registered under section 354 IPC. It was not faithfully recorded. A copy of this report was given to her husband and he took it to the village. It was read by some persons and than it was revealed that it has not been properly recorded. On 5.10.1996 she presented a complaint to the SDO (Police), Sakti, District Bilaspur and that is Ex. P-1. On the basis of this report investigation was made and the charge-sheet under section 376 IPC was filed. The trial Court has held that the charge under section 376 IPC is not proved but the accused was convicted under section 354 IPC. The judgment of the trial Court shows that a finding has been recorded that the accused had sexual intercourse with Kayabai (PW 1) with her consent. It was not against her will. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that in such a case as the consent on the part of the prosecutrix to the act of sexual intercourse was held as proved, there could be no question of outraging her modesty or using criminal force upon her. The evidence on record has been scrutinised by this Court. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that in such a case as the consent on the part of the prosecutrix to the act of sexual intercourse was held as proved, there could be no question of outraging her modesty or using criminal force upon her. The evidence on record has been scrutinised by this Court. The trial Court has dealt with the question of consent at length and in view of the statement of Kayabai (PW 1) in her cross-examination it has been found that she was the consenting party and she made hue and cry because Dewantibai (PW 2) came at the place in the act of sexual intercourse. This finding of fact, keeping in view the material on record, cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable of the appellant under section 376 IPC. As the prosecutrix was found to have given her consent for sexual intercourse by the accused, there could be no assault or use of criminal force upon her by the accused. The consent for sexual intercourse implies that there was consent to use force upon her. The trial Court has given conflicting findings of fact. There is substance in the argument raised on behalf of the appellant that there could not be conviction under section 354 IPC, when the trial Court has found that there was consent on the part of the prosecutrix for having sexual intercourse with her. In the result this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 354 Indian Penal Code are set aside. The amount of fine if deposited be refunded to the accused.