JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by accused appellant Uma Ram against the judgment and order dated 31.5.1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 29/91, whereby, he has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 376/511 Indian Penal Code but has been convicted for the offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of which to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that Smt. Suman accompanied by her husband Bhagirath went to Police Station. Ratan Nagar where she lodged oral FIR at 7.15 p.m. on 28.9.1999 with the allegation that on that very day she had gone to the field of Nathu Ram for grazing the goats. At about 12.30/1.00 p.m. she was sitting in the temporary hut situated at the field of Nathu Ram. The appellant Uma Ram came inside the said hut. She tried to come out of the hut but he caught hold of her and fell her on the ground. When she tried to raise hue and cry the appellant closed her mouth with one of his hands and after opening his underwear fell upon her. He raised her "Ghaghra" and tried to commit rape on her but she resisted and pushed him away. When she tried to run away, he caught hold of her and in the scuffle her glass bangles were broken and her "Odhana" was torn. She somehow managed to free herself from his clutches and ran away from there to the village. Then the accused appellant also went away to his own field. On reaching her house she narrated the incident to her mother-in-law. Her husband also returned to home after sometime and she also told him about the incident. Thereafter, she, accompanied by her husband and her mother-in-law and other persons of the village went to the place of occurrence where they found broken bangles lying there in the temporary but and after returning from there she and her husband came to the Police Station to report the matter. Thereafter, she, accompanied by her husband and her mother-in-law and other persons of the village went to the place of occurrence where they found broken bangles lying there in the temporary but and after returning from there she and her husband came to the Police Station to report the matter. Her oral information was reduced to writing and on the basis of this report F.I.R. No. 45/90 was registered for the offence under Sections 376/511 Indian Penal Code After necessary investigation the challan was filed for the offence under Sections 376/511 Indian Penal Code in the Court of Munsif cum-Judicial Magistrate, Churu who committed the case to the court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties and on the basis of available materials on record framed charge for the offence under Sections 376/511 Indian Penal Code against the accused appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and produced 5 documents in support of the prosecution case. In his examination under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the accused appellant again denied the allegations and stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case and that the evidence produced against him was false and that the witnesses were telling lies against him due to groupism and enmity. He also pleaded that Bhura Ram and his brother had some dispute in connection with sowing of the field by his tractor and Bhaigirath, husband of Mst. Suman, the prosecutrix, was working as conductor on the said tractor and it was at his instance that this false case has been foisted against him. Thereafter the learned Sessions Judge heard final arguments and passed the impugned judgment as indicated above. 3. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and have also perused the entire record thoroughly. 5. Mst. Suman being the prosecutrix is the most important witness in this case. Giving a vivid, detailed and picturesque account of the incident that took place with her, she has stated that on the day of occurrence, she had gone to the field of Nathu Ram for grazing the goats. 5. Mst. Suman being the prosecutrix is the most important witness in this case. Giving a vivid, detailed and picturesque account of the incident that took place with her, she has stated that on the day of occurrence, she had gone to the field of Nathu Ram for grazing the goats. At about 12.30/1.00 p.m. it started drizzling so she went inside the temporary hut erected there with the support of the tree. The appellant came there and caught hold of her and fell her on the ground. He raised her 'ghaghra' up and after untying his own underwear fell on her and tried to commit intercourse with her. She pushed him and raised hue and cry. He also pressed her breasts. As the land where he fell her was 'Kachha' she did not receive any injury. Her bangles were broken. She came to her house and narrated the incident to her mother-in-law. Her husband also came and she told him also what had happened with her. Thereafter, her mother-in-law Mst. Mohini, her husband and the villagers namely Bhura Ram, Lichhman Ram, Nathu Ram. Asu Ram, Arjun Ram, Keshar Dev etc., went to the spot and found pieces of broken bangles. They adviced them to lodge a report with the police. Then she went to the police station alongwith her husband and lodged F.I.R. Ex.P/1 which bears her signatures at A to B and C to D. The police visited the place of occurrence in her presence and prepared the site inspection memo Ex.P/2 and seized the pieces of broken bangles vide Ex.P/3 - seizure memo. The police also seized her 'odhna' which was torn in the scuffle that ensued due to her resistance against the appellant trying to ravish her vide Ex.P/4. These memos bear her signa-tures. She has been corroborated by the F.I.R. Ex.P/1 and other witnesses namely Mst. Mohini P.W.8, who is her mother-in-law and Bhagirath P.W.2, who is her husband and to whom she narrated the incident soon after the incident and their evidence is relevant and admissible as res gestae. Other witnesses namely Keshar Dev P.W.3, Bhura Ram P.W.4, Nopa Ram P.W.5, Natha Ram P.W.6, Arjun Ram P.W.7 have also supported the prosecution story that they went to the place of occurrence after being told that the appellant ravished Mst. Suman and found pieces of bangles there besides certain other signs in the hut. 6. Other witnesses namely Keshar Dev P.W.3, Bhura Ram P.W.4, Nopa Ram P.W.5, Natha Ram P.W.6, Arjun Ram P.W.7 have also supported the prosecution story that they went to the place of occurrence after being told that the appellant ravished Mst. Suman and found pieces of bangles there besides certain other signs in the hut. 6. All these witnesses have been cross examined at length but nothing material could be elicited from them which could render their testimony unworthy of trust. There are no valid, cogent and reasonable grounds on record to suspect that they could be falsely implicating the appellant. The evidence of the prosecutrix is quite natural and without any embellishments and exaggerations. It does not stand to reason that she would falsely implicate a person without any rhyme or reason for such an offence which involves her own familial and social prestige and reputation. Besides this, if she had any intention or motive of doing so, she could have very well alleged that the appellant had committed rape with her. But she has not done so which also shows that she has stated only what had happened with her. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that F.I.R. has been lodged after the considerable delay and same has not been explained. The story that a Panchayat was called is not believable. But the F.I.R. Ex.P/1 has been lodged on that very day at 7.15 p.m. whereas the incident is of 12.30/1.00 p.m. The police station is 20 Kms. away from the place of occurrence. This has also come in the evidence and is abundantly proved that the villagers on learning about the incident first went to the place of occurrence and after returning from there, they advised the complainant party to report the matter to the police. Thus, first of all, there is no undue delay in lodging the F.I.R. with the police and whatever time has been taken in reporting the matter to the police has been satisfactorily and reasonably explained and therefore this contention of the learned counsel is without any substance. 8. The next contention of the learned counsel is that if the occurrence had in fact taken place, she must have sustained abrasions on her person but neither her medical examination has been got done nor she has herself proved that she received any injuries on her person. 8. The next contention of the learned counsel is that if the occurrence had in fact taken place, she must have sustained abrasions on her person but neither her medical examination has been got done nor she has herself proved that she received any injuries on her person. So the story is improbable and coloured version has been given. 9. Mst. Suman P.W. 1 has clearly explained that the land where she was felled by the appellant was 'Kachha' so she did not receive any injury. This fact has not been rebutted and nothing could be elicited from her on this point which could render her explanation unbelievable or artificial. 10. He has contended that the witnesses being relatives of prosecutrix are interested witnesses. It may be stated that it is not expected that a lady would report such incident to strangers instead of her own close relatives. There are no eye witnesses of the occurrence. If the story would have been cooked up, the presence of someone of them could have been easily shown near the occurrence but no such nefarious effort having being made in this case the criticism does not hold water. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any material discrepancy in their evidence except that the presence of brother of appellant in nearby field is admitted and on the basis of it, it has been contended that it is improbable and unlikely that the appellant would have committed such an act. In this regard, first of all it has not been got clarified as to at what distance the brother of the appellant was standing in his field. From the statements of the prosecutrix herself it appears that the field where the brother of the appellant was standing is far of from the place of occurrence. Then there cannot be any universal rule of conduct that a particular person would behave in a given manner. No defence evidence has been produced to show that the brother of the appellant was nearby. Even brother of the appellant has not been examined to rebut and demolish the prosecution case. Hence, this argument is also not tenable. 11. Then the learned counsel for the appellant has pointed cut that Mst. Mohini P.W.8 has stated that Mst. Suman P.W.1 had come back at about 3-4 p.m. whereas Mst. Even brother of the appellant has not been examined to rebut and demolish the prosecution case. Hence, this argument is also not tenable. 11. Then the learned counsel for the appellant has pointed cut that Mst. Mohini P.W.8 has stated that Mst. Suman P.W.1 had come back at about 3-4 p.m. whereas Mst. Suman P.W.1 says that soon after the incident she returned home. Similarly, he has pointed out discrepancy in the number of cattle which she had taken for grazing. She says that three goats and a buffalo each of herself and that of Nathu Ram were taken by her for grazing, whereas, Mst. Suman P.W.1 does not say that she took any buffalo for grazing. Keshar DEV, - P.W.3 says that 3-4 buffalos and 6-7 goats were taken for grazing. Whereas, Mst. Suman P.W.1 says that four goats of her own and a similar number of goats of Nathu Ram were taken for grazing. Nathu Ram P. W.6 says that Mst. Suman P.W.1 has not gone to the spot with them, whereas, other witnesses namely Bhagirath P.W.2. Keshar Dev P.W.3, and Mst. Mohini P.W.8 say that Mst. Suman had also gone with them. These witnesses are rustic and illiterate persons and it cannot be lost sight of that such minor discrepancies are natural to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses due to lapse of memory or lack of proper attention and observation and the importance being attached to these facts by the witnesses. All these discrepancies do not pertain to the main commission of offence and, therefore, they are insignificant and immaterial. These minor discrepancies do not in any way demostrate that the prosecution story is false or fabricated or the witnesses are not telling the truth. 12. In this view of the matter, all the contentions of the learned counsel have no substance and same are rejected. 13. The learned trial Judge has discussed the prosecution evidence in detail. His appreciation of evidence and the view taken by him cannot be said to be illegal or perverse in any manner. The finding of guilt recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in this case against the appellant for the offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code being based on proper appreciation of evidence does not call for any interference by this Court and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 14. The finding of guilt recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in this case against the appellant for the offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code being based on proper appreciation of evidence does not call for any interference by this Court and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 14. Learned counsel has, at the end, urged that more than 11 years have elapsed since the incident and the appellant has remained in custody for eight days during investigation, trial and appeal and there is no allegation that the appellant ever committed such offence or any other offence during the past 11 years. This is his first offence and now he is settled in life. So lenient view may be taken in the matter of punishment. lie has submitted that the appellant may be released on the period already undergone by him and if the Court considers it necessary and appropriate, the sentence of fine may, be enhanced. 15. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the quantum of sentence is in the discretion of the Court. 16. Indeed, more than 11 years have elapsed since the incident took place and there is also no allegation that he ever recommitted such offence or any other offence during the past 11 years. 17. Thus, looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not appear to be desirable to send the appellant to jail again after lapse of such a long period and ends of justice would be met if his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by him and fine imposed upon him is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-. 18. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code recorded by the learned trial Judge is upheld but his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by him and sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of which, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven months. The appellant is allowed two months time to deposit the fine in the trial court failing which the appellant shall be arrested and sent to jail to serve out the modified sentence. If the amount of fine is recovered, Rs. 3,000/- shall be paid to Mst. Suman P.W. 1 as compensation.Appeal disposed of. *******