JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.8.81 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore convicting the accused appellant of offence under Section 376 I.P.C. sentenced him to 4 years R.l. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment to further undergo 4 months imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case is that PW/6 Moda the husband of the prosecutrix PW/8 Mst. Jamu lodged a F.I.R. at Police Station Bashera on 8.9.80 stating interalia that his wife alongwith his brother and brother's wife had gone to the field for the collection of the fodder. While she was cutting the grass, Chaudhary Ganesh S/o Adaji and accused Dhukia arrived there and forcibly caught hold his wife and tried to molest and pulled her down. His wife cried for the help and that attracted his brother PW/3 Tagia, PW/11 Veerma & PW/5 Mohania. Dhukia managed to escape from that place. He, also snatched away the small piece of gold ornaments from the persons of his wife. However, Ganesh Choudhary was over powered by them. On this information, Police registered a case of offence under Section 354 & 382 I.P.C. and proceeded with the investigation. After usual investigation, Police laid a charge-sheet against the accused appellant of offence under Section 376 I.RC. 3. The accused appellant was charged for offence under section 376 I.PC. He denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined 12 witnesses and produced number of documents. 4. In Statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. accused pleaded that there was a quarrel between him and Virma and Mohania with respect to cutting of grass, as such, a false case has been foisted against him. The learned trial judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 5. It is submitted that reading of the F.I.R. clearly shows that a simple case under Section 354 I.P.C. has been later on developed in the case of rape. It is further submitted that in the F.I.R. alongwith the appellant, Ganesh Choudhary was shown as accused but the Investigating Officer has given clean chit to Ganesh Choudhary and falsly implicated the appellant. On the other hand it is submitted by the learned Addl. It is further submitted that in the F.I.R. alongwith the appellant, Ganesh Choudhary was shown as accused but the Investigating Officer has given clean chit to Ganesh Choudhary and falsly implicated the appellant. On the other hand it is submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that the F.I.R. has been lodged by PW/6 Moda without collecting the complete details of the incident from the victim and, therefore, it does not contain ail the details. He has also referred the statement of PW/8 Mst. Jamu recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she stated that while she was working in the field, accused Ganesh Choudhary and Dhukia came there and demanded water. She gave them water to drink. The rape was committed by Dhukia. She also stated that Ganesh Choudhary was in drunken condition and he was lying byneath the trees, near the place of incident. 6. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. The case as set out in the F.I.R. is that while the prosecutrix PW/8 Mst. Jamu was cutting the grass in the upper field, the accused Ganesh Choudhary and Dhukia arrived there. His wife was caught hold, molested and than was thrown on the ground. It is of course true, that there is no specific allegations of rape in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. is a previous statement which can strictly be used to corroborate or contradict the maker of it. However, the omission of important fact affecting the probabilities of the case is relevant under Sec 11 of Evidence Act for judging the veracity of the prosecution case Thus, on this ground the entire prosecution case cannot be rejected. The only requirement is that the court has to be more careful in judging the veracity of the statement of prosecutrix. 7. PW/8 Mst. Jamu has stated that on the date of the incident, she had gone to field for collecting the grass. In the afternoon, while she was cutting the grass, the accused Dhukia arrived there. He caught hold and throw her on the ground and committed rape. As soon as she got up, she made a cry shouting that the accused Dhukia has committed rape on her and has ran away. This cry attracted his brother-in-law PW/3 Tagia his wife PW/7 Tara and PW/11 Veerma. She told them that Dhukia has committed rape on her. He caught hold and throw her on the ground and committed rape. As soon as she got up, she made a cry shouting that the accused Dhukia has committed rape on her and has ran away. This cry attracted his brother-in-law PW/3 Tagia his wife PW/7 Tara and PW/11 Veerma. She told them that Dhukia has committed rape on her. Her brother-in-law Tagia chased Dhukia but, he could not succeed. She also stated that as her husband Moda was at house, PW/7 Tara went to the house to inform her husband about the incident. I have read lengthy cross examination running in 6 pages. All possible suggestions were put with respect to her character and the actual act of intercourse constituting rape. She has replied all the questions with respect alleged incident of rape. I am at pains to say that the counsel for the appellant before the trial court crossed all the limits of decency putting questions to the prosecutrix. The cross examinations almost reached to the stage of vulgarity. It is all the more unfortunate that the learned trial Judge permitted him to put the such sort of questions in spite of objections raised by the learned Public Prosecutor. In such a situation it is the duty of the court to ensure that the dignity of the women in the witness box is maintained and she is not un-necessarily harassed and humiliated. A irrelevant, indecent cross-examination, by a lawyer amounts professional misconduct punishable under Section 35 of the Advocates Act. In a fit case, the court should not hesitate to report the conduct of such lawyer to his parent body, namely Bar Council. Be that as it may, the defence could not succeed in eliciting anything in the cross examination of PW/8 Mst. Jamu to impeach her credibility. PW/3 Tagia has stated that on the date of incident his Bhabhi Mst. Jamu was working in the different field. On hearing her cries, he rushed to the place of incident. After some time his wife Mst. PW/7 Tara also arrived there. Mst. Jamu did not disclose the entire incident before him but, the same was disclosed before his wife PW/7 Tara. Thereafter Mst. Tara went to inform his brother Modu. The F.I.R. was lodged by her husband. PW/7 Mst. Tara has stated that hearing cries of his sister-in-law, PW/8 Mst. Jamu, her husband Tagia rushed to her. Mst. Jamu did not disclose the entire incident before him but, the same was disclosed before his wife PW/7 Tara. Thereafter Mst. Tara went to inform his brother Modu. The F.I.R. was lodged by her husband. PW/7 Mst. Tara has stated that hearing cries of his sister-in-law, PW/8 Mst. Jamu, her husband Tagia rushed to her. As he did not returned, she also went to the place of incident. Mst. Jamu disclosed to her that she was raped by the accused Dhukia. She went to the house and informed about the incident to PW/6 Moda the husband of Mst. Jamu. Thus, the statement of Mst. Jamu finds corroboration from the statement of PW/3 Tagia and PW/7 Tara. PW/6 Moda has stated that on the date of incident Mst. Tara, wife of his brother Tagia came to him and said that Dhukia has molested his wife. He got the F.I.R. written by Shankarlai Mahajan. After putting thumb impression thereon, it was submitted before the Police. He also stated that he did not consider it necessary to first talk to his wife and brother Tagia before proceeding to lodge the F.I.R. as Police Station. PW/7 Mst. Tara being lady must not have been able to narrate the incident of rape in exact words to his eider brother-in-law Moda. Thus Moda could say in the F.I.R., as he could understand Mst. Tara. It is however, stated in the F.I.R. that PW/8 Mst. Jamu was molested and she was thrown on the ground. Having read the statement of PW/8 and the other witnesses referred to above, I find that the statements are natural and trustworthy. Medical evidence in the instant case is not of much significance as the prosecutrix Mst. Jamu is a grown up lady aged 40 years. PW/12 Vishnuial is the investigating Officer. He has stated that during investigation it revealed that Ganesh Choudhary was in drunken condition and he was iying near a tree and as such he was caught hold on the spot. He also said that there was no allegation against him of rape. Thus, he was not arrayed as accused in the alleged incident. With respect to the justification as to why Ganesh Choudhary was not produced as prosecution witness, it is stated that as he was in drunken condition, he could not have said anything about the incident. He also said that there was no allegation against him of rape. Thus, he was not arrayed as accused in the alleged incident. With respect to the justification as to why Ganesh Choudhary was not produced as prosecution witness, it is stated that as he was in drunken condition, he could not have said anything about the incident. In view of this, I do not find any substance in the contention of learned counsel with respect to non production of Ganesh Choudhary. Thus I hold that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the case of rape against the accused appellant. I do not find any infirmity in the order of trial Court. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of 4 years awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period of one year. 8. Consequently, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with the modification on the point of sentence as indicated above.Appeal Dismissed. *******