ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The respondent was convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment by the judgment and order of the Sessions Court, which has been set aside by the High Court by the impugned judgment, dated 3-3-2003, by simply observing, without any discussion on evidence whatsoever, that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution theory that the girl in question was subjected to rape. The impugned judgment, however, states that the evidence shows that the accused did make an attempt to outrage the modesty of a woman and, therefore, he committed an offence under Section 354 IPC. In this view, the High Court has set aside the conviction under Section 376 IPC and convicted the respondent under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs 5000 and, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. The manner in which the criminal appeal has been decided by the High Court is most unsatisfactory. For the serious and heinous crime of rape, the judgment of the Court of Session has been reversed without adverting to the evidence at all by general observations made in one paragraph of the impugned judgment. 4. In this view, we set aside the impugned judgment and direct fresh decision of Criminal Appeal No. 364 of 1995 by the High Court. The said appeal shall be placed before a learned Judge other than the Judge who delivered the impugned judgment. 5. The appeal is allowed accordingly.