Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Hoshiar Singh son of Khem Chand, has assailed the judgment rendered by additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby he was held guilty of offence under section 354 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 2. The present appellant was named as accused in case FIR No.256 dated 31.10.1995 registered at Police Station Uklana, under Sections 354, 506, 376 and 511 IPC. 3. Fir in the present case was lodged on the statement made by Rattan singh. Statement of Rattan Singh was recorded in Daily Diary Register vide entry No.4. Same was exhibited as Ex. PE. It was stated in the complaint that hoshiar Singh, present appellant, used to tease wife of his son Purshotam in the path-way. Matter was reported to khem Chand, father of the appellant, but he had not taken any action against his son. It was stated that Hoshiar Singh, appellant, had committed the mischief second time. Therefore, report was made to the police. Matter was investigated and report under Sec.173 Cr. P. C. was submitted. On 3.4.1996, court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, framed the charge against the appellant that on 24.10.1995 in the area of village Naya Gaon, he assaulted kailasho Devi wife of Purshotam, a woman with intention to outrage her modesty and thus, offence under Sec.354 IPC was made out. The second charge was also framed against the appellant for offence under Sec.376 IPC read with section 511 IPC on the ground that appellant caught hold of Kailasho Devi and broke the string of her salwar. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution led its evidence. 5. Hira Lal, Sub Inspector/station House Officer, was examined as PW.1. He stated that he had recorded supplementary statement of Kailsaho on 3.11.1995 and had submitted report under Sec.173 Cr. P. C. after completion of investigation. Complainant Rattan Singh appeared as PW.2. He stated that on 24.10.1995, at about 11/11.30 A. M. , his son Purshotam told that Hoshiar Singh, accused, had attempted to outrage the modesty of his daughter-in-law Kailasho and made an attempt to kiss her and broke the string of salwar. He proved application Ex. PA submitted by him to the police authorities. Complainant Rattan Singh appeared as PW.2. He stated that on 24.10.1995, at about 11/11.30 A. M. , his son Purshotam told that Hoshiar Singh, accused, had attempted to outrage the modesty of his daughter-in-law Kailasho and made an attempt to kiss her and broke the string of salwar. He proved application Ex. PA submitted by him to the police authorities. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he has not mentioned in his application that accused Hoshiar Singh had caught hold of the hand of Kailasho and had broken the string of her salwar. In cross-examination, later this witness stated that accused had made obscene gestures towards his daughter-in-law. This witness is not an eye witness and his deposition is made on the basis of information given by his son Purshotam. 6. Kailasho wife of Purshotam, appeared as PW.3. She stated that about 13 months before the date of her deposition, at about 9/9.30 A. M. She was going towards her fields to give meals to the parents of her husband. Her devar Pawan and Om Pati had followed her. Accused Hoshiar Singh came there and asked as to why she was not speaking with him. Thereafter, accused Hoshiar Singh had caught hold of her hand, kissed her and broke the string of her salwar. At that time, om Pati and Pawan had reached there. They were attracted by the noise raised by her. Accused ran away from the spot. The incident was narrated by Kailasho to her husband Purshotam who disclosed this fact later to father-in-law of the witness. This witness was confronted with her previous statement Ex. DA where the fact of breaking of string of salwar and attempt to rape on the part of appellant was not mentioned. This witness further stated in cross-examination that the accused was not on visiting terms to her house and he never met her earlier. Earlier to this incident she was neither asked for anything nor she talked. Accused never misbehaved with her earlier to this incident. Pawan, aged 14 years, younger brother of husband of Kailasho, was examined as PW.4. He corroborated the statement of PW.3 Kailasho. 7. Subhash Chander, Patwari, Halqa Naya Gaon, prepared rough site plan Ex. PD. 8. Harish Chander, Assistant Sub Inspector, appeared as PW.6 and deposed regarding various aspects of the investigation. Accused never misbehaved with her earlier to this incident. Pawan, aged 14 years, younger brother of husband of Kailasho, was examined as PW.4. He corroborated the statement of PW.3 Kailasho. 7. Subhash Chander, Patwari, Halqa Naya Gaon, prepared rough site plan Ex. PD. 8. Harish Chander, Assistant Sub Inspector, appeared as PW.6 and deposed regarding various aspects of the investigation. In cross- examination, he admitted that Investigating Agency had registered the case under Sec.354 ipc. It was later Prosecuting Agency added offence under Sec.376/511 IPC. 9. Ms. Minakshi Girdhari, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hissar, appeared as PW.7. She stated that on 6.11.1995 she was posted as Judicial Magistrate at hisar. She further stated that the Investigating Officer filed application ex. PG through Assistant Public Prosecutor and statement of Kailasho Devi was recorded under Sec.164 Cr. P. C. Statement of Kailasho Devi recorded under section 164 Cr. P. C. was proved as Ex. PB. 10. Prosecution closed its evidence. Thereafter, statement of appellant was recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. He stated that relation between his father and father-in-law of prosecutrix were not cordial due to land dispute and he has been falsely implicated. No evidence was led in defence. Trial Court observed as under:- "19. While stepping into witness box PW3 Smt. Kailasho has stated that accused has broken the string of her salwar and attempt to rape on her and the witnesses Ompati and Pawan reached there. PW4 Pawan has only stated about the kissing by the accused as well as catching hold of hands of kailasho and then pushed her string of salwar and his Bhabhi set down on the ground on seeing the witnesses. PW2 rattan Singh, complainant, has stated that accused had made an attempt to commit rape after breaking the string of Salwar of Kailasho. But the statement of PW2 Rattan Singh is merely a hear-say evidence and thus carries no weight. Thus, it is clear from the complaint as well as statement recorded by prosecutrix under Sec.161 Cr. P. C. and the statement of prosecutrix under section 164 Cr. P. C. and statements made by Pws Rattan Singh, Kailasho and pawan that the accused has tried to outrage the modesty of Smt. Kailasho and did not make any attempt to commit rape". 11. After making the above said observation, trial Court concluded as under:- "23. P. C. and the statement of prosecutrix under section 164 Cr. P. C. and statements made by Pws Rattan Singh, Kailasho and pawan that the accused has tried to outrage the modesty of Smt. Kailasho and did not make any attempt to commit rape". 11. After making the above said observation, trial Court concluded as under:- "23. Moreover, there is no medical examination regarding any attempt or rape on the person of prosecutrix or any injury during scuffle. So it is held that accused did not expose nor attempted to expose his private part. Nor the fact of this case shows that accused was determined to have intercourse at all events because as soon as he saw the "devar" of the prosecutrix he ran away. There is only allegations, though not proved that prosecutrix was naked to some extent as string of salwar is pulled. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that no offence to commit an attempt to rape under Section 376/511 I. P. C. is made out. However, accused in this case has committed an offence punishable under Sec.354 I. P. C. as such he is held guilty under section 354 I. P. C. " 12. No State appeal has been filed against the acquittal of appellant for offence under Sec.376/511 IPC. From the perusal of complaint made by hoshiar Singh, only allegation levelled against the appellant is that he used to tease Kailasho Devi, his daughter-in-law. In the present case, occurrence pertain to October 1995. Appellant has already suffered protracted trial of more than 14 years. At the time of determination of quantum of sentence, appellant stated that he is a married person and having old parents. His brothers and sisters are dependent upon him. In the last 14 years, the appellant may have fastened himself with many responsibilities of the family. It is stated that in the last 14 years, the appellant has committed no offence. 13. Taking these facts into consideration as mitigating circumstances, sentence awarded upon the appellant is reduced from one year to six months. 14. With the modifications made in the sentence awarded upon the appellant, present appeal is dismissed.