JUDGMENT 1. The appellant (accused) in Criminal Appeal No. 2360/2005 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two months and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and also convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one week and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for an offence punishable under Section 341 IPC. Therefore, he has filed Crl.A.No. 2360/2005. 2. The State has tiled Criminal Appeal No.702/2006 inter alia contending that the respondent-accused should have been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The State, as an alternative measure, has filed Criminal Appeal No.701/2006 for enhancement, of sentence imposed for an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. 3 We have heard Sri B. Anand, learned Counsel for accused and Sri N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned HCGP. We have been taken through the evidence and the impugned judgment. 4. The appellant is alleged to have committed rape on victim (PW-1) at about 12.30 p.m. on 22.9.2003 near the jawar field of one Venkataramanappa, when the victim was returning from school to her village. Papenahalli. The accused is alleged to have wrongly restrained the victim and carried the victim to the jawar field of one Venkataramanappa and committed rape on her. When the victim raised hue and cry, accused ran away from that place. The victim somehow reached her house and informed the matter to her step-mother, Ratnamma (PW-4). Matter was also informed to her father, Marappareddy (PW-3), who on the same day lodged first information and set the law into motion. The victim was subjected to medical examination. The Investigating Officer visited the place of incident, recorded the statement of witnesses. Accused was arrested and on completion of investigation, a final report was filed for offences punishable under Sections 341, 506, 376 r/w. 511 IPC. 5. On 12.8.2004. the learned Sessions Judge framed the following charges: Firstly, that you on 22.9.2003 at about 12.30 p.m., near land of Venkataramanappa, Jawar Thota, situated at Papenahalli village, Mittermari Hobli. Bagepalli Taluk, wrongfully confined Lalitha, 13 years and thereby committed an offence punishable tinder Section 341 IPC. 5. On 12.8.2004. the learned Sessions Judge framed the following charges: Firstly, that you on 22.9.2003 at about 12.30 p.m., near land of Venkataramanappa, Jawar Thota, situated at Papenahalli village, Mittermari Hobli. Bagepalli Taluk, wrongfully confined Lalitha, 13 years and thereby committed an offence punishable tinder Section 341 IPC. Secondly, that you on the said date, time and place committed criminal intimidation by threatening Lalitha, 13 years, with injury to her person with intent, to cause alarm to the said Lalitha and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. Thirdly, that you on the said date, time and place, attempted to commit rape on Lalitha, 13 years and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376 r/w. Section 511 of IPC. 6. On 14.11.2005. when the case was posted for judgment, the learned trial Judge, on an application filed under Section 216 Cr.P.C by the learned Public Prosecutor, altered the charge by deleting the word 'attempt' and an offence under Section 511 IPC to make it appear that accused had been fried for an offence under Section 376 IPC. In other words, accused was tried for completed act of rape. 7. During trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and produced documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-7 and marked material objects as per M.Os. 1 to 4. 8. The learned trial Judge, on appreciation of evidence acquitted the accused for an offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and convicted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 354 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as aforestated. The victim (PW-1) has deposed that on 22.9.2003 at about 12.30 p.m., (during afternoon) when she was returning from the school from Papenahalli gate to her village Papenahalli near the jawar field of one Venkataramanappa, accused confronted her, forcibly carried her to the jawar field and committed rape on her. There were blood stains on her clothes. When the victim raised hue and cry, accused threatened her not to inform the matter to anyone and left that place. The clothes of victim were blood stained. The victim recovered for a while and managed to reach her house and informed the matter to her step-mother (PW-4), who secured the father of victim (PW-3). On the same day, the victim was taken to Bagepalli Police Station and PW-1 lodged first information. The clothes of victim were blood stained. The victim recovered for a while and managed to reach her house and informed the matter to her step-mother (PW-4), who secured the father of victim (PW-3). On the same day, the victim was taken to Bagepalli Police Station and PW-1 lodged first information. The victim was examined by the Medical Officer in General Hospital at Bagepalli. She gave her blood stained clothes to the police. During cross-examination, she has admitted that there was enemity between accused and her father. There was a pathway dispute. The accused and father of victim belonged to two different political parties and they were enemical to each other. During cross-examination, the victim has deposed that accused physically carried her to the jawar field of one Venkataramanappa and committed rape on her. She was carried to a distance of 50 feet. Her inner garments were stained with blood and mud and she gave her blood stained clothes to the police. In the adjoining land, people were not working. Her father took her to the police station at 5.00 p.m. Before going to the police station, they had gone to Taluk office where they got the complaint written. In addition to her father, her step mother, CW-4, Narayanaswamy and CW-7. Muddappa had also gone to the police station. As could be seen from the evidence of victim, there was no cordiality between the father of victim and accused on the date of occurrence. There was longstanding enemity. 9. The evidence of PW-2 Dr.Ravindra would reveal that he examined victim at 7.00 p.m., on 22.9.2003. PW2 did not find any external or internal injuries. PW2 has opined that victim had not been sexually assaulted. He had issued a certificate as per Ex.P-2. This Court after finding that Ex.P-2 was not in the format requested the learned Government Advocate to obtain the Accident Register extract, which was made available to us. The contents of wound certificate issued (not in format) and the contents of Accident. Register are one and the same. The medical evidence does not support: the version of rape given by victim. The victim had not deposed that she had suffered any external injuries. She had not suffered abrasions or scratches on her person. The contents of wound certificate issued (not in format) and the contents of Accident. Register are one and the same. The medical evidence does not support: the version of rape given by victim. The victim had not deposed that she had suffered any external injuries. She had not suffered abrasions or scratches on her person. The victim has deposed that she was forcibly carried out to a place of 50 feet and she was felled on jawar field before the accused committed rape on her. In the circumstances, it looks improbable that victim had not even suffered a scratch. The Investigating Officer had seized the clothes of victim however, they were not sent to F.S.L. to confirm the presence of blood or seminal stains. Therefore, it is a case where the medical evidence and the scientific evidence are lacking. 10. We are left with the uncorroborated evidence of victim. The father of victim had lodged first information at about 9.30 p.m., on 22.9.2003. In the first information, the father of victim PW-3 has stated that accused had attempted to commit rape on her daughter. In fact, first information report was registered in Crime No. 123/2003 for offences punishable under Sections 354, 341 and 506 IPC. During evidence, PW-3 when confronted with the first information, had come out with an explanation that as the elders of village told him that in order to save the honour of his daughter, he should not state that accused had committed rape on victim. On careful consideration of evidence of PW-3, we find that there was longstanding enemity between accused and PW-3. Therefore, his evidence, that as advised by the elders he did not state in the first information that accused committed rape on victim cannot be accepted. From the evidence of PW-3, we find that after registration of the case for the aforestated offences, PW-3 and other villagers protested in front; of the Bagepalli Police Station for not: registering the case for an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. After protest, the Investigating Officer submitted further report on 10.12.2003 to include an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. If PW-3 was very much concerned about the honour of his daughter not to disclose an offence of rape in the first information, he would not gathered people to protest against, the police for not registering a case for an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. If PW-3 was very much concerned about the honour of his daughter not to disclose an offence of rape in the first information, he would not gathered people to protest against, the police for not registering a case for an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. Therefore, we find that the first information lodged by the father of victim does not inspire confidence. The absence of injuries, lack of medical evidence and the scientific evidence and the discrepancy found in the first information clearly rule out that victim was subjected to rape. Even regarding attempt of rape, we do not find satisfactory evidence. 11. In the discussion made supra, we have held that the father of victim had lodged the first information wherein, he has not disclosed that victim was subjected to rape and the reasons assigned by him for such an omission are not acceptable. PW.4- Rathnamma (mother of victim) has deposed; that on the date of incident, the victim returned home at 1.00 p.m and informed PW.4 that the accused dragged her to a jowar field, gagged her and spoiled her. PW.4 found that there were bloodstains on the limbs and clothes of victim and bloodstains on her private part. Her clothes were stained with blood and mud. The victim had informed her that the incident had taken place in the land of Kothapalli Muniyappa. After the victim informed the matter to her the victim and her parents along with some other persons visited Bagepalli and got the complaint written near Taluk office and thereafter lodged the first information. The victim was sent for medical examination to Government Hospital at Bagepalli. The clothes of victim were given to the investigating officer. The victim had not, informed PW 4 that accused had committed rape on her. On the other hand, she had informed that she was spoiled. The victim has deposed that the incident had occurred in the land of Kothapalli Muniyappa. PW.4 has not deposed that the victim had suffered external injuries such as scratches or abrasions. PW.4 has admitted that there was enmity between father of accused and her husband. Therefore, the evidence of PW.4 that accused had committed rape or attempted to commit rape on the victim does not inspire confidence. 12. PW.6-Narayanaswamy who had learnt the incident from the parents of victim had accompanied the parents of victim to Bagepalli police station. 13. PW.4 has admitted that there was enmity between father of accused and her husband. Therefore, the evidence of PW.4 that accused had committed rape or attempted to commit rape on the victim does not inspire confidence. 12. PW.6-Narayanaswamy who had learnt the incident from the parents of victim had accompanied the parents of victim to Bagepalli police station. 13. The evidence given by the investigating officer would reveal that, at the first instance, crime was registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 354, 506 IPC. As there was protest by the father of victim and other persons in front of police station, an offence under Section 376 was included. 14. Thus, on over all appreciation of evidence, we find that the first information given by the father of victim does not state that accused had committed rape on the victim. The evidence of victim, that the accused had carried her to a distance of 150 feet and thereafter committed rape on her does not find corroboration from the medical evidence. Even the victim has not deposed that she had suffered external injuries when the accused had carried her to a distance of 350 feet and fell her on the ground. 15. The learned counsel appearing for accused would submit that the evidence of victim and her parents is highly discrepant, and incredible. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused had outraged modesty of the victim. This submission cannot be accepted for the following reasons : The victim was studying in VIII Standard. The victim has deposed that the accused confronted her when she was returning from her school to her village. There was no immediate motive for the victim to falsely implicate the accused. It appears accused after seeing the victim alone going towards her village had made indecent advances and outraged her modesty. Due to pre-existing enmity between the father of victim and the accused, her parents had exaggerated the incident of outraging the modesty of victim as the incident of rape. As we have found the evidence of victim is not supported by medical evidence and the evidence of parents of victim also does not lend corroboration to the evidence of victim, we have extended the benefit of doubt to accused for an offence punishable under section 376 r/w 511 IPC. However, the extension of such benefit of doubt will not completely exonerate the accused. However, the extension of such benefit of doubt will not completely exonerate the accused. The submission of learned counsel for accused that evidence of victim and her parents is completely inconsistent and incredible cannot be accepted. 16. Thus, on reappreciation of evidence, we are of the opinion that the evidence of victim which is not supported by medical evidence dos not inspire confidence in view of discrepant evidence given by her parents. Tine evidence of father of victim and the contents of the first information lodged by him are not consistent. The evidence of mother of victim is in no way better than the evidence of her father. Therefore, on reappreciation of evidence we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had committed rape or attempted to commit rape on the victim. 17. We also find from the proceedings of the court below that, the learned trial judge having framed charge against accused for an offence punishable under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC, after conclusion of the trial when the case was posted for judgment, on an application made by the learned Public Prosecutor has altered the charge by deleting the word 'attempt'. After such alteration, the altered charge was not read over to accused who was tried for an offence punishable under Section 37b r/w 511 IPC. Thus, the learned trial judge had also confounded the confusion already created by the investigating officer and prosecution witnesses. Therefore, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. 18. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the learned trial judge having found the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC has sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of two months, therefore, the sentence is meager. 19. The learned counsel appearing for accused would submit that: the incident took place in the year 2003. By now, the victim and accused are settled in their life. Therefore, further enhancement of sentence will cause untold hardship to the accused. 20. An offence under Section 854 IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 21. The accused did not bear any criminal antecedents and he has parents to care for. By now, the victim and accused have settled in life. 20. An offence under Section 854 IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 21. The accused did not bear any criminal antecedents and he has parents to care for. By now, the victim and accused have settled in life. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no need to enhance the sentence. 22. In the result, we pass the following: Order 23. Crl.A 702/2006 and Crl.A 701 /2006 filed by the State is dismissed, Crl.A 2360/2005 filed by the accused is also dismissed.