JUDGMENT 1. - Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2), Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and sentence passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bhilwara dated 21.12.1993 passed in Criminal Case No. 3/1992, by which, the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 354, Indian Penal Code and trial Court passed sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of X 500, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 2. As per brief facts of the case, an F.I.R. was registered under the thumb impression of complainant Smt. Bhagwani W/o Lokchand Balai at Police Station Gangapur, in which, it is alleged by the complainant that on 21.7.1991 at about 5 P.M. in the evening when she was going with her husband to her father's house, in between the way, tyre of her husbands bicycle got punctured, therefore, husband of the complainant went back for getting the puncture mended and, in the meantime, the complainant walked along the way to her father's house. At that time, near the pond, the accused-appellant who was riding a mare tried to outrage modesty of the complainant and assaulted her with teeth using filthy words. 3. At that juncture, husband of the complainant returned there and accused-appellant ran away from that place. In the complaint it is specifically pleaded that in the evening no F.I.R. was registered on that day; but, thereafter, on the next day i.e., 22.7.1991, after medical examination at her own, she filed complaint along with copy of the injury report given by the doctor. The reason for registering the F.I.R. or the next day for the above incident was given that due to night F.I.R. was not filed at that time. 4. After investigation, the police filed challan against the appellant for offence under Section 354, Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(x), SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In the trial, statements of the five witnesses from the side of the prosecution were recorded namely, PW-1 Smt. Bhagwani (complainant), PW-2 Lokchand, PW-3 Dr. Satish Kumar Dabi, PW-4 Azam Ali, the then SHO and statement of Banney Singh, Dy. S.P. Gangapur. Thereafter, statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code and, in defence, statement of DW-1 Shanti Lal Sethia was recorded. 5. Satish Kumar Dabi, PW-4 Azam Ali, the then SHO and statement of Banney Singh, Dy. S.P. Gangapur. Thereafter, statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code and, in defence, statement of DW-1 Shanti Lal Sethia was recorded. 5. The trial Court, after hearing arguments of both the sides, acquitted the appellant from the charge under Section 376/511, Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(i), SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act but convicted the appellant under Section 354, Indian Penal Code and passed sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/-. 6. While challenging the validity of the above judgment learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that totally concocted story was framed to malign the prestige of the appellant by the complainant and her husband-which is evident from the fact that no independent or any other witness except the complainant and her husband was produced before the Court. It is also urged that the trial Court has ignored the important aspect of the matter while convicting the appellant for the alleged incident which took place at about 5 P.M. on 21.7.1991 but no F.I.R. was filed by the complainant and her husband and, on the next date 22.7.1991 they did not go to Police Station but they went to Referral Hospital, Gangapur for medical examination and, very strangely PW-3 Dr. Satish Kumar Dabi examined the complainant on her own request and issued injury report Ex.-4 at 1.40 P. VI. on 22.7.1991 without even informing the police or upon the request of police, so also, without registration of the case against the appellant. Satish Kumar Dabi examined the complainant on her own request and issued injury report Ex.-4 at 1.40 P. VI. on 22.7.1991 without even informing the police or upon the request of police, so also, without registration of the case against the appellant. Thereafter, complaint was filed at about 3.30 P.M. before the Police Station Gangapur; and, in the complaint itself, it is specifically mentioned that complainant is filing medical report also along with the complaint, meaning thereby, a concocted story was framed prior to filing the F.I.R. and, in the F.I.R., it is specifically stated that - " eSaus >Vdk fn;k rks esjs fteuh rjQ idM+ dj cVdk Hkh fy;k o Nhuk >iVh dh esjh pksyh QkM+ nh o esjs uk[kqu yxs o eq>s fxjk fn;k rFkk esjs ij cnQSyh djus dh fu;r ls esjs ij fxjkA " and, in the investigation, the police recovered the blouse and it is specifically averred in the F.I.R. that her husband went back for getting the punctured bicycle repaired; but, in the statement before the Court, it is stated by PW-1 Smt. Bhagwani that - " eSa esjs ihgj tk jgh Fkh D;ksafd esjs ihgj ls vkneh cqykus vk;k FkkA esjs ifr esjs lkFk Fkk tks ihNs vk jgk Fkk D;ksafd lkbZfdy fiapj gks x;h FkhA eSa iSny tk jgh FkhA " 7. Similarly, PW-2 Lobh Chand, husband of the complainant, said that before the incident when they were going to in-laws' house, at that time, bicycle of Lokchand, husband of the complainant was punctured and he went back for repairing the puncture and came back after ten minutes; meaning thereby, there is no consistency in the averments made in the complaint and statements made before the Court. Further, no independent witness or any other witness was produced before the Court to prove the factum of the occurrence; more so, it is case in which before registration of the case by the police the complainant got herself medically examined in the hospital and, that too, after one day of the incident and, after getting the injury report, she went to the Police Station for registering the case. 1 earned trial Court ignored all the above facts and convicted the appellant for offence under Section 354, Indian Penal Code which is completely contrary to the evidence on record. 8. 1 earned trial Court ignored all the above facts and convicted the appellant for offence under Section 354, Indian Penal Code which is completely contrary to the evidence on record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the instant case is an outcome of conspiracy because some amount of the accused-appellant was due which was paid by the appellant for purchasing ornaments and so as not to pay back the said amount this concocted story has been framed in which the appellant has been falsely implicated and convicted by the trial Court. For substantiating this argument, learned counsel for the appellant invited attention of the Court towards statement of the accused-appellant recorded under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, so also, statement of DW-1 Shanti Lal Sethia and submits that Rs. 600/- were paid by him to accused Madho Singh and said amount was taken by Madho Singh appellant for purchasing silver for husband of the complainant PW-2 Lokchand ami at the time of taking Rs. 6,000/- from him, both Lokchand and Madho Singh came to his house; meaning thereby, the instant criminal case is based upon a concocted story framed against the appellant because he was insisting for repayment of his money but all these aspects of the matter have not been considered by the trial Court, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that it is a case in which PW-1 Smt. Bhagwani categorically stated in her statement that the appellant tried to outrage her modesty and trial Court relied upon the prosecution version on the basis of testimony of the witnesses and convicted the appellant for offence under Section 354, Indian Penal Code in which there- is no illegality. As per learned Public Prosecutor the finding given by the trial Court is based upon statement of PW-1 Smt. Bhagwani which is corroborated by the testimony of her husband who was present at the site when the occurrence took place. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire record of the case; and, more specifically, I have examined the F.I.R. registered at Police Station Gangapur upon written complaint filed by PW-1 Smt. Bhagwani at 3 P.M. on 22.7.1991. 11. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire record of the case; and, more specifically, I have examined the F.I.R. registered at Police Station Gangapur upon written complaint filed by PW-1 Smt. Bhagwani at 3 P.M. on 22.7.1991. 11. In the complaint it is specifically averred by her that her medical examination has already been made, therefore/she is annexing copy of the injury report. In the injury report, two injuries are enumerated. It appears that at the time of drafting up the complaint the said injury report was already there and thereafter, the F.I.R. was typed. There is no other evidence except statements of PW-1 Smt. Bhagwani and PW-2 Lokchand. In my opinion, if the incident took place at about 5 P.M. in the evening on 21.7.1991, then, certainly it was to be reported at the Police Station immediately but, strangely enough, F.I.R. was not filed on that very day and, on 22.7.1991, Dr. Satish Kumar Dabi who was posted as Doctor in the Referral Hospital, Gangapur examined the complainant on her own request at 1.40 P.M. Upon perusal of the statement of PW-3 Dr. Satish Kumar Dabi it reveals that the Medical Officer examined Smt. Bhagwani on her own request and gave report at 1.40 P.M. and handed over it to the complainant herself; meaning thereby, before registration of the case, first medical report was obtained and then complaint was drafted and filed at Police Station Gangapur, upon which, F.I.R. was registered and, in the whole incident, both complainant and her husband did not disclose the factum of incident prior to filing the complaint in the Police Station. 12. Upon the above facts, a reasonable doubt is created because no investigation is conducted by the police; and, straight away, after recording statements of PW-1 Smt. Bhagwani and PW-2 Lokchand under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, challan was filed in the Court where the trial took place. For the purpose of conviction, in my opinion, the prosecution story is doubtful and, in this case, the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Further, in the F.I.R., it is specifically stated by PW-1 Smt. Bhagwani that her under-garment was destroyed but recovery of blouse was made and that, too, creates doubt on the prosecution story. 13. Further, in the F.I.R., it is specifically stated by PW-1 Smt. Bhagwani that her under-garment was destroyed but recovery of blouse was made and that, too, creates doubt on the prosecution story. 13. Similarly, in the F.I.R. and statement of PW-1 Smt. Bhagwani it is categorically stated that husband of the complainant went back for getting the punctured bicycle repaired but, in the Court, she deposed that upon her cries her husband came at the spot. Likewise, PW-2 Lokchand stated before the Court that he came to the spot after 10 minutes and, at that time, his wife was crying. No other witness is produced before the Court to prove the incident nor any witness is produced before the Court that incident is reported to any other person who examined PW-1 Smt. Bhagwani; meaning thereby, the finding given by the trial Court is not supported by trustworthy evidence of prosecution. Moreso, the fact that the injured got herself examined first by the doctor and after obtaining report she filed the F.I.R. along with medical report. Therefore, in this case, without there being any complaint/F.I.R. the complainant straight away got herself medically examined for the purpose of filing complaint. All these circumstances loudly speak that finding of conviction is based upon suspicious evidence. 14. In the opinion of this Court it is not safe to maintain the conviction arrived at by the trial Court against the appellant for commission of offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code Further, upon above discussion, it is abundantly clear that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, obviously the finding given by the trial Court for holding the appellant guilty deserves to be quashed.As a result of the foregoing discussion, this appeal is allowed. Judgment impugned dated 21.12.1993 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bhilwara in Criminal Case No. 3/1992 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are hereby discharged.Appeal allowed. *******