Judgment Abhijit Sinha, J. 1. Although appellant, Pramod Kumar Pandey, was charged u/s. 376 read with Sec. 511 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 624/16 of 1990/91, arising out of Jamui PS. Case No. 114/89, he was, however, convicted by Sri Nirmalendu Kumar Kanth "Niraj", the then 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui, by Judgment and order dated 23.11.1992 u/s. 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of one year. 2. It appears that one Ramgulam Sah (P.W. 2) filed a petition of complaint on 29.6.1989 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui, alleging commission of offences under Ss. 323, 376, 511 of the Indian Penal Code at the hands of the appellant herein and on the same being transmitted to the concerned Rs. u/s. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Jamui RS. Case No. 114/89 was registered under Ss. 341, 323, 376/ 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The narration in the complaint, briefly, was that at around 12 noon on 28.6.1989 while Rani Kumari (P.W. 5), the complainants daughter-in-law, was attending to her grazing cow in a Bahiyar, the accused arrived suddenly and catching hold of her dragged her forcibly towards a ditch and with the intention to commit rape threw her on to the ground and climbing top her started removing her sari. It is said that when the victim raised protest she was assaulted and a pistol was put against her chest. However, Rani Kumari managed to raise hulla attracted whereby the witnesses arrived seeing which the accused took to his heels. It is alleged that had not the witnesses arrived, the daughter-in-law would have been ravished. 3. After due investigation the police submitted a charge-sheet under the same sections whereunder the case was registered. However, at the trial after commitment a charge only under Ss. 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the sole accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence plea was one of innocence and false implication in persuance of an earlier threat given by the informant to falsely implicate him when the accused had sought for reimbursement of the money given by him as loan to the informant. 4. The defence plea was one of innocence and false implication in persuance of an earlier threat given by the informant to falsely implicate him when the accused had sought for reimbursement of the money given by him as loan to the informant. 4. In support of its case the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses including the doctor and the Investigating Officer, Several documents were also adduced in evidence to give an additional impetus to the prosecution case. 5. The learned trial Judge on consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions advanced by the parties came to a finding that it was a case u/s. 354 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 6. The appellant has sought to assail the impugned judgment and order and in course thereof it was submitted that with the innumerable and glaring discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses it does not inspire confidence and the prosecution case is not above doubt. It was also sought to be submitted that the witnesses claimed by the prosecution to be eye witnesses cannot be accepted as such as it would transpire from their respective testimony that they did not really witness the incident for they had arrived at the scene in pursuance of the alarm raised by which time the alleged accused had vanished. 7. Before dealing with the contentions raised by the defence it would only be apt to analyse the testimony of the witnesses for assessment of their probative value and it would only be in the fitness of things to begin the exercise with the testimony of P.W. 2, Ramgulam Sah, the author of the complaint petition. He does not seem to be an eye witness of the occurrence which is apparent both from the complaint petition as also his testimony in court. In his testimony he stated that while he was working in his fields on hearing hulla at around 12 noon1 P.M. that Pramod Pandey had attempted to commit rape on Rani Devi, his daughter-in-law and the wife of his son Sanjay, when she had taken food for her dewar, Babloo, in the Barmatore Bahiyar he rushed to the spot and found only Rani and Babloo present there. The witness began to state that the daughter-in-law informed him but then he had second thoughts and altered his statement to say that his daughter-in-law did not even know the culprits and it was his son Babloo who gave out that it was Pramod Pandey who had forcibly laid the daughter-in-law on to the ground in an attempt to commit rape. He admitted having filed the complaint in court and identified his signature on the complaint which is Ext.-1. He also admitted of having given his statement to the police. 8. In course of his cross-examination P.W. 2 stated that there is a hotel in the Kutchery premises in the name of his son, Babloo Sah. He further stated that Babloo had taken the cattle for grazing in the morning and he did not come home for his lunch. He stated that it was Babloo who had gone to call him and he had not heard the bulla as he was at quite some distance. He also stated In the cross-examination that when he arrived at the spot Rani was not present as she had gone back to the house. When the informant was confronted with his recital in the complaint petition he denied having made most of the recitals that had been incorporated in the complaint petition. He denied the defence suggestion that he had falsely implicated Pramod Pandey as Pramod Pandey wanted back the money that he had loaned to the informant, and the informant had threatened to implicate him falsely. 9. The informant from his deposition as compared to the recital in the complaint petition appears to be a confused man who does not know as to what he must say and in view of the glaring discrepancies, inconsistencies and embelishments in his testimony, it would not be safe to place reliance on the deposition of this witness. 10. Babloo Sah, the younger son of the informant has been examined as P.W. 3. He gave out his age as ten years and the court also assessed his age as ten years. Prior to recording his evidence he was tested by the court as to his capacity to depose in court and on being satisfied his deposition was recorded. 10. Babloo Sah, the younger son of the informant has been examined as P.W. 3. He gave out his age as ten years and the court also assessed his age as ten years. Prior to recording his evidence he was tested by the court as to his capacity to depose in court and on being satisfied his deposition was recorded. He stated that he was grazing cattle in the Bahiyar when his Bhauji came with his food and after he had finished his meal while the Bhauji was washing the utensils by the river side accused Pramod Pandey arrived and asked him to go to the village and when he refused Pramod Pandey caught hold of the hands of the Bhauji and forcibly laid her on to the ground and cautioned him not to raise hulla. He further stated that he and his Bhauji raised hulla attracted whereby Bilash Sah ploughing the field nearby came running by which time Pramod had fled. P.W. 3 admitted of having given his statement to the police. In course of his cross-examination by the defence he stated that ploughing work was being carried in the agricultural lands by the side of river and not in the Bahiyar. He also stated that he returned home with the cattle in the evening. He further stated that his father had accompanied him to the court but denied the defence suggestions that he had been taken to the lawyer for coaching him in respect of what was to be stated in court. He denied the prosecution suggestion that he had deposed in terms of what he had been tought. 11. P.W. 4 is Sanjay Kumar Sah, the elder son of the informant and husband of the victim. He stated in court that he had been working in Babloo hotel in Jamui and returned home at 10 P.M. and on such return he was informed by his wife and Babloo of the happenings that had taken place in the afternoon when Rani had carried food for Babloo and was washing the utensils after Babloo had consumed the food. He stated in court that he had been working in Babloo hotel in Jamui and returned home at 10 P.M. and on such return he was informed by his wife and Babloo of the happenings that had taken place in the afternoon when Rani had carried food for Babloo and was washing the utensils after Babloo had consumed the food. He stated that he was informed that when Rani went to the river side to wash the utensils Pramod had arrived and while teasing her caught hold of her and forcibly laid her on to the ground and attempted to remove her Sari and on hulla being raised by people from nearby areas arrived whereupon Pramod fled. In course of his cross-examination he admitted knowing Moni Mishra who runs his hotel on the otherside of the road and opposite Babloo hotel. He denied the prosecution suggestion that Pramod had been falsely implicated since his father had borrowed money from Pramod and did not want to return the same when Pramod asked for reimbursement of the same. 12. Nothing of any significant importance has been attracted by the defence from P.Ws. 3 and 4 so as to the discredit their testimony. 13. Rani Kumari, the victim of the occurrence has been examined as P.W. 5. She stated that she carried food for Babloo to the Brahamuttar Bahiyar where he was grazing cattle and while she was washing the utensils Pramod Pandey arrived and asked Babloo to leave the place and when she stated that she would also go with Babloo Pramod caught hold of her hand and threw her to the river and caught hold of her breast. She also stated that Pramod lifted her sari and attempted to commit rape and when Babloo raised hulla he fled. In the cross-examination she denied having returned home after Babloo had finished his meal and stated that she had gone to the river to wash the utensils. She stated that she was washing the utensils by the river side and not in the middle of the river. She also stated that Pramod did not pick her up and throw her on to the ground but as a matter of fact caught hold of her and forcibly laid her on to the ground. She also stated that her bangles had broken resulting in her sustaining abraisons and she also had back ache. She also stated that Pramod did not pick her up and throw her on to the ground but as a matter of fact caught hold of her and forcibly laid her on to the ground. She also stated that her bangles had broken resulting in her sustaining abraisons and she also had back ache. She also stated that her Sari, Saya and Blouse had got wet as she had fallen into the water and part of her San also got torn. She stated that she had shown the P.O. and broken pieces of bangles to the police. 14. Dr. Nirmala Singh who had examined the victim girl as P.W. 6 who stated that she had not found any injury on the private part or body of Rani Kumari although swelling on the right scapular region. 15. P.W. 1 is Ram Bilash Sah who stated in court that at around 12 noon while he was plaughing the field he heard hulla and rushed to the spot near the river and found Rani weeping. He stated that on enquiry Rani gave out that Pramod Pandey had rapped her whereupon he gave chase but Pramod Pandey managed to flee. In the cross-examination he stated that when he reached the river side on hearing hulla he did not find any one Bathing or washing clothes in the river nor was there anyone collecting water. He further stated that Ranis clothes were wet. 16. P.W. 7 is Sushil Kumar a S.I. in the Police Line, Jamui who has merely identified the formal F.I.R. which has been marked as Ext. 2. 17. From the above discussions it would transpires that although the informant in his testimony in court has bacillated from original story as given in the complaint petition the other witnesses more or less have supported the fact of accused Pramod Pandey attempting to outrage the modesty of Rani Devi, As would transpire from the evidence of the witness including that of Babloo a minor who also withstood the initial taste by the court and the cross-examination by the defence the accused taking advantage of loneliness of the victim caught her forcibly laid her on to the ground and by lifting her Sari attempted to commit rape. The victim girl has even stated of Pramod laying his hands on her breast. The victim girl has even stated of Pramod laying his hands on her breast. This only indicates the motive of the accused in attempting to commit rape on Rani Devi and in the process outraging her modesty. So far as the offence u/s. 354 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned intention to outrage modesty of a woman or knowledge that the act of the accused would result in outraging her modesty is the gravamen of the offence. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The defence plea of false implication cannot be accepted as there is nothing on the record except suggestion to some of the witnesses of false implication by the informant since he did not want to return the money allegedly loaned to him by the accused. 18. Having given by anxious consideration to the matter in issue I am of the opinion that there is no reason for interference with the impugned Judgment of conviction and the same is accordingly upheld. 19. It appears that the Sessions Trial is of the year 1990 and the initial case was instituted in the year 1989 which means that the appellant herein has suffered trauma and hardship for the past eighteen years. 20. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and the hardship both mental and physical that the appellant has undergone apart from the drain of his financial resources, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the sentence is modified to the one already undergone. 21. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with modification in the sentence as mentioned above.