Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. Bishan Singh appellant has been convicted under section 354 Indian Penal Code, vide judgment dated 16/9/1994 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.200.00, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month, vide order dated 17/9/1994 passed by the Additional sessions Judge, Faridabad. He has filed this appeal in order to challenge his conviction and sentence under Sec.354, Indian Penal Code. 2. The appellant is alleged to have caught hold of Smt. Jagan Devi wife of kanchan and dragged her inside the sugarcane field in the morning hours of 3/8/1992 when she was in the process of answering the call of nature in the fields near the village Abadi. He allegedly made her lie on the ground and put off her Dhoti and Peticot and made an attempt to commit sexual intercourse. Smt. Jagan Devi raised alarm, on hearing of which her husband Kanchan and Bai Chand P. W. rushed to the spot. On seeing them, the accused ran away. Thereafter she accompanied her husband to make a report to the Police. However, the Police met them at the Bus Stop village Patli. Her statement (Ex. PA) was recorded, on the basis of which formal F. I. R. (Ex. PA/1) was recorded at Police Station City, Palwal. The prosecutrix was medically examined at Civil Hospital, Palwal, on 3.8.1992 at 1.40 P. M. by Dr. Krishan Kumar (P. W.3), who found the following injuries on her person: "1. She complained of pain on both upper arms. There was no mark of injury. Movement of arms was normal and were not painful.2. She complained of pain in chest on both sides. No evidence of injury over the chest and breast.3. She complained of pain in abdomen. There was no mark of injury seen. She also complained of 8 months amenor-rhoe. The patient was referred to L. M. O. for gynae check up.4. There was a contusion on right calf region. Reddish blue in colour. " Nature of injury was simple in nature and was caused by blunt weapon. Probable duration was 24 hours. In the cross-examination, the doctor said that in fact injuries Nos.1,2 and 3 were no injuries and subjectively he could not have ascertained any duration. There was a contusion on right calf region. Reddish blue in colour. " Nature of injury was simple in nature and was caused by blunt weapon. Probable duration was 24 hours. In the cross-examination, the doctor said that in fact injuries Nos.1,2 and 3 were no injuries and subjectively he could not have ascertained any duration. The doctor also could not rule out the possibility whether there was any pain at all or not. With regard to injury No.4, the doctor said that this injury might have been of very small dimension but in any case it was superficial in nature. 3. On the same very day Lady medical Officer Dr. Poonam examined the prosecutrix and she gave her opinion as under : "history of amenorrhoe 7 months 23 days. There was history of blow on the abdomen but no history of spotting or bleeding per vagina. Per abdominal examination fetal heart sound. Pulse regular 138 per minute. Uterus size 30-32 weeks. " In her cross-examination Dr. (Mrs.)Poonam stated that there was no abnormality and the prosecutrix was all right. 4 In order to prove its case, the prosecution besides the formal official witnesses, examined Smt. Jagan Devi prosecutrix (P. W.6), Bai Chand (P. W.7) and joginder Singh, Inspector (Retired) (P. W.8 ). 5. When examined under Section 313, Cr. P. C. , the accused denied the prosecution allegations and he stated as under :- "i am innocent. There is party rivalry in the village and due to this reason, this false case was got registered against me by the complainant party. " In support of his case, the accused examined his uncle Raj Pal Singh as D. W.1, who stated that there was strong party faction in the village. There were two parties one led by him and the other by Bai Chand P. W. The accused was his nephew, i-e. , son of the brother. 6 After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Additional Sessions judge, Faridabad, convicted and sentenced the accused as stated at the very outset 7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per medical evidence, there was no mark of injury on the person of the prosecutrix. Thus, it shows that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and Bishan Singh appellant had been falsely implicated in the case. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per medical evidence, there was no mark of injury on the person of the prosecutrix. Thus, it shows that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and Bishan Singh appellant had been falsely implicated in the case. It has further been contended that there are material contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix before the police and the statement made by her before the Court. Thus, the counsel contends that no reliance can be placed on the statement of Smt. Jagan Devi prosecutrix. The counsel also contended that the prosecution failed to examine kanchan, who is the husband of the prosecutrix and was a material witness, as he had allegedly reached the spot on hearing the cries of his wife Smt. Jagan Devi at the relevant time. The contention of the counsel is that non-examination of kanchan by the prosecution raise an eye-brow against the prosecution story. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that it is not probable that the accused would dare to lift the prosecutrix forcibly in order to take her to the sugarcane field at the time and from the place where she was easing herself as there was Rasta on both sides of the field and the place was frequented by the people at that hour of the morning. 8. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant have vehemently been controverted by Mr. S. K. Hooda, learned Senior Deputy Advocate general; Haryana. 9. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on examining the evidence adduced on record, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The prosecution witnesses are consistent in their statements that the accused was seen with the prosecutrix in the sugarcane field. In her statement the prosecutrix stated that she was forcibly taken to the sugarcane field by the accused. He put off her Peticot and Dhoti and made her to lie on the ground and when he was in the process of committing sexual intercourse, she pushed him away with her legs and raised alarm. On hearing the alarm, Bai Chand (P. W.7) and her husband Kanchan rushed to the spot. In his statement Bai Chand stated that he had seen the accused lying on the prosecutrix and seeing them, he ran away from the field. On hearing the alarm, Bai Chand (P. W.7) and her husband Kanchan rushed to the spot. In his statement Bai Chand stated that he had seen the accused lying on the prosecutrix and seeing them, he ran away from the field. Without any loss of time, the incident was reported to the Police. If there are some minor contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix made before the Police and the Court, that does not mean that the accused had not out-raged modesty. Even in her statement before the Police, on the basis of which the F. I. R. was registered, the prosecutrix stated that the accused had forcibly taken her to sugarcane field despite her resistance and he had made her lie on the ground and when he tried to commit sexual intercourse, she had pushed him away with her legs. The same is her statement before the Court. Her statement finds corroboration from p. W.7 Bai Chand, who stated that he had seen the accused lying on the prosecutrix. Merely, because her husband kanchan did not appear in the witness-box in order to support the prosecution case, it does not mean that the prosecutrix had made false allegation against the accused. No woman would like to put her honour and modesty at stake merely on the basis of party faction in the village. 10. The contention of the counsel for the appellant that the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution as the doctor did not find any injury on her person, is also without any merit. It has come in the statement of dr. Krishan Kumar (P. W.3) that there was at a contusion on right calf region which was reddish blue in colour and the probable duration of the injury was within 24 hours. It is not necessary that there must been a grievous injury on the person of the prosecutrix in order to prove the act force applied by the accused to take her to the sugarcane field. The offence under Sec.354, Indian Penal code, stood proved at the stage when the accused had arrived at the place where the prosecutrix was easing herself and pulled her to take her to the sugarcane field. Had the prosecutrix been a consenting party she would not have pushed the accused away with her legs when he had tried to commit sexual intercourse with her. Had the prosecutrix been a consenting party she would not have pushed the accused away with her legs when he had tried to commit sexual intercourse with her. In case the doctor does not find any injury on the person of the prosecutrix, it cannot be presumed that she was a consenting party to the act of the accused. 11. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly dismissed and the conviction of the appellant under Sec.354, Indian Penal code, is upheld. 12. However, it has come on record that the accused was a young man of 26 years when the incident had taken place and he is a first offender. Keeping in view his young age, I set aside the sentence of imprisonment for one year awarded to him. In lieu of this concession, it would be in the fitness of things, if the fine is enhanced. Thus, it is ordered that the appellant shall pay a fine of Rs.20,000.00. The amount of fine shall be deposited by the accused in the trial Court within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The entire amount of fine is ordered to be paid to smt. Jagan Devi prosecutrix by the trial court immediately on the deposit of the same by the accused. Appeal allowed partly.