JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral) This Criminal Appeal, U/S 374 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short Cr.P.C.), has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21-3-2003, passed by Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2002 State Vs. Narendra Chand @ Naresh Chand, whereby the accused was found guilty of offence U/S 354 I.P.C. and he was sentenced to undergo six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months R.I. The accused was further held guilty U/S 3 (1) (xi) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities )Act and was sentenced to undergo six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused was acquitted U/S 3 (1)(3) S.C. and S.T. Act. 2. The prosecution story in short is that on 30-10-2001 at about 11 a.m. the accused Narendra Chand attempted to commit forcible rape upon Km. Maya a minor girl of Keshave Ram, who belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. The written report of the incident was handed over by Keshav Ram to Sub Divisional Magistrate Pithoragarh. On the basis of written report Ext. Ka.1, chick F.I.R. Ext. Ka.4 was prepared and a case crime No. 2/2001 U/Ss 376, 392, 323 I.P.C. was registered against the accused. The Investigating Officer during investigation prepared site place Ext. Ka.5 and arrest memo Ext. Ka.6. The girl was medically examined by the doctor and medical report Ext. Ka.2 was prepared. After completing the investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet Ext. Ka.3 against the accused U/Ss 323, 324, 354, 76/511 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(111-Xi) S.C. S.T.Act. 2 3. The C.J.M. Pithoragarh vide his order dated 15.1.2002 committed the case to Sessions for trial. 4. The Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh on 28-1-2002 framed charges U/Ss 376/511 IPC an Section 3(1)(111)(xi) of S.C. and S.T. Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution to prove its case got examined P.W.1 Km. Maya, prosecutrix, P.W.2 Keshav Ram, complainant of the case, P.W.3 Dr. 4. The Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh on 28-1-2002 framed charges U/Ss 376/511 IPC an Section 3(1)(111)(xi) of S.C. and S.T. Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution to prove its case got examined P.W.1 Km. Maya, prosecutrix, P.W.2 Keshav Ram, complainant of the case, P.W.3 Dr. Lalit Joshi, who has medically examined the prosecutrix, P.W.4, Himalay Sigh martolia, the I.O. who has submitted charge sheet against the accused and P.W.5, Umed Ram Tamta, I.O. who had investigated the case at the initial stages. 6. The accused in his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C. has denied the prosecution case and alleged that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity. He bore enmity with Prahalad Singh and Prahalad Singh in collusion with Kesav Ram has lodged false case against him. The accused did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 7. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the entire evidence on record and hearing the parties convicted the accused U/S 354 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1)(xi) of S.C. and S.T. Act. 8. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the story of the prosecution that the accused had attempted to commit rape upon the prosecutrix and on same set of evidence the learned Sessions judge has convicted the accused U/S 354 I.P.C. and U/S 3 (1)(xi) SC and S.T.A. Act and the conviction of the accused is against the evidence on record. 10. By perusal of impugned judgment it is revealed that the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused U/S 354 I.P.C. and U/S 3 (1)(xi) of S.C. and S.T.Act. a person is convicted for an offence U/S 354 I.P.C. where he assaults or use criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty and under section 3(1)(xi) S.C. and S.T. Act whoever assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty. 11. In the case at hand P.W.1, Km. Maya is the prosecutrix. Her statement is important. She has deposed that on 30-10-2001 she along with her sister Laxmi had gone to Pipalpatta jungle to cut grass. 11. In the case at hand P.W.1, Km. Maya is the prosecutrix. Her statement is important. She has deposed that on 30-10-2001 she along with her sister Laxmi had gone to Pipalpatta jungle to cut grass. She was returning to her house at 11-12 in the noon and when she reached at Pipalpatta toke, accused caught hold of her from behind and laid down the bundle of grass from her back and pressed her breasts from his hands. The accused also opened her salwar. She started crying at this the accused closed her mouth and she sustained injuries on her mouth and teeth. Her sister Laxmi was coming from back side. The accused tried to commit rape upon her, but she saved her from the clutches of the accused and the accused ran away. She has given categorical statement that the accused pressed her breasts, and in order to commit forcible rape upon her he fell her down on the ground and climbed upon her and outraged her modesty. Thus from the testimony of Km. Maya it is amply proved that the accused tried to commit forcible rape upon her but she escaped herself and the accused has committed the offence of outraging the modesty of the prosecution which is punishable U/s 354 I.P.C. This witness has been cross examined at length but nothing immaterial has come out from her statement which may discard her on oath testimony. The prosecutrix is a scheduled caste lady and the accused has used force to outrage her modesty therefore offence U/S 3(1)(xi) S.C.S.T. Act is also proved against the accused. 12. P.W.2 Keshav Ram is the complainant. He has proved the written complaint. 13. P.W.3, Dr. Lalit Joshi, has medically examined the prosecutrix and found following injuries on the person of Km. Maya:- 1- Multiple abrasions left side of neck, 3 in number, 9 cm, 6 cm and 8 cm on scab formed. 2- Multiple abrasions behind left ear 2 in numbers, 5cm and 3 cm in near scab formed. 3- Abrasion above left breast 0.5cm in diameter scab well formed. 4- Abrasion above left upper arm 0.3cm in diameter well scab formed. Duration of injury is 3-5 days approximately. The injuries were caused by hard blunt object. 14. Thus from medical evidence it is quite obvious that Km. 3- Abrasion above left breast 0.5cm in diameter scab well formed. 4- Abrasion above left upper arm 0.3cm in diameter well scab formed. Duration of injury is 3-5 days approximately. The injuries were caused by hard blunt object. 14. Thus from medical evidence it is quite obvious that Km. Maya sustained injuries at the hand of the accused when the accused tried to outrage her modesty by felling her down on the ground. In the statement of prosecutrix it has come that she was successful in escaping herself from the accused and the accused could not succeed to commit rape upon her. The Medical Officer has examined her for the injuries sustained by her at the hands of accused and her private part was not examined by the doctor. 15. P.W.4, and P.W.5 are the investigating Officers and these witnesses have proved the prosecution papers prepared by them during investigation. 16. From the side of accused no strong motive has been put forward as to why Km. Maya would falsely depose against the accused. The testimony of P.W.1, Km. Maya is reasonable and trustworthy and there is no reason to discard her testimony. 17. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge by holding the accused guilty of Section 354 I.P.C. and Section 3(a)(xi) S.C. and S.T. Act. 18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the accused/appellant had remained in jail w.e.f 1.11.2001 to 22.2.2002 and this period should be deducted from the period for which the accused has been sentenced. 19. Certainly the period already undergone by the appellant in jail shall be deducted from the period for which he has been sentenced. 20. For the discussion made above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 21. The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 21-3-2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge is upheld. 22. The accused/appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. The accused appellant shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded against him. 23. Let the LCR be sent to trial court for compliance.