JUDGMENT Navin Sinha, J. 1. The Appellant stands convicted under Section 354, I.P.C. to six month's rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and under Section 451, I.P.C. to six month's rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In the event of failure to pay fine, he was required to undergo three months further rigorous imprisonment on each count as ordered by the Special Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Special Case No. 61 of 2002 dated 18th January 2002. F.I.R., Exhibit P/1 was lodged on 15th November, 2001 at 19:10 hours by PW 1, Geeta for the occurrence the same day at 4:00 o'clock. The informant stated that she lived with her grandfather, PW 2, Sukhram. On the fateful day, her grandfather had gone to answer the call of nature. At that time, the Appellant came to her house and asked if she was alone. On her answer in the affirmative finding her alone, with the intention to outrage her modesty, the Appellant pressed her breasts and opened her sari. The Appellant left when she shouted for help warning her not to disclose the occurrence to anyone, else he would finish her. The informant then informed her neighbour PW 3, Sanath Kumar Lahre, co-villagers, Jethudas and Kisundas and then came to the Police Station with her grandfather PW 2, Nandkumar and Balakdas for lodging the report. PW 4, Indrabhushan Singh, proved the recording of the F.I.R. by him stating that it was recorded correctly as per the statement of PW 1. PW 6, S.R. Salam, the S.D.P.O. was the Investigating Officer, who filed the charge-sheet. He denied that he had made any recording under Section 161, Cr. P.C. of PW 1 contrary to what she may have stated during investigation. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that there are several contradictions between the statement of PW 1 under S. 161 Cr. P.C. and the deposition in Court with regard to the manner and sequence of events during the occurrence. Embellishments have been made during deposition in Court attributing statements to the Appellant and with regard to his conduct during the alleged occurrence. The possibility of false implication due to local village politics by tutoring PW 1, who was a minor aged 15 years could not be ruled out. Embellishments have been made during deposition in Court attributing statements to the Appellant and with regard to his conduct during the alleged occurrence. The possibility of false implication due to local village politics by tutoring PW 1, who was a minor aged 15 years could not be ruled out. The benefit of the same must be given to the Appellant by holding that the case had not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 3. It was next submitted that the occurrence took place long ago on 15th November, 2011. The Appellant was approximately 38 years of age on that date. On the date of occurrence, the offence under Section 354, I.P.C. was bailable till its amendment in the year 2013. He was therefore, released on bail. At the time of conviction also he was granted provisional bail considering that he had remained in custody for one day and was subsequently granted bail by this Court in the appeal. Considering the nature of allegations, the law as it stood then, the delay in hearing of the appeal, the passage of time and that today he is approximately 62 years of age, the conviction may be reduced to the period already undergone. 4. Learned Counsel for the State has opposed the appeal submitting that the Trial Court has elaborately discussed the alleged discrepancies between the statement of PW 1 under Section 161, Cr. P.C. and her deposition in Court. They cannot be called contradictions at all. Even if they be so considered, they were trivial in nature not affecting the credibility of the evidence of the prosecutrix herself so as to falsify the entire occurrence. The alleged contradictions do not vitiate the otherwise cogent and clear evidence of the 15 years aged minor, who was the victim and who also stood the test of cross-examination confirming the allegations. He submitted that in the nature of present allegations, the statement of prosecutrix herself could not be taken lightly to grant acquittal on the basis of any trivial differences or contradictions or the period of conviction be reduced to the period already undergone which was one day only. 5. The Court has considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and perused the evidence available on the record. 5. The Court has considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and perused the evidence available on the record. There can be no two opinions on the basis of the materials on record that on the date and time in question, PW 1 was alone at home and the Appellant had gone to her house at that time. The evidence of PW 1 herself, PW 2 and PW 3 read together also leaves no doubt that the prosecutrix was alone at home when the occurrence took place. PW 1 in her chief and cross-examination has stood by the original allegation made against the Appellant in the F.I.R. Her broken bangles marked Exhibit P/5, have been seized from the room where the appellant is stated to have dragged her from the courtyard when he attempted to outrage her modesty. She specifically denied having been tutored by Jethudas and Kisundas for falsely implicating the appellant due to village politics. The fact that she was dragged for about 20 feet and despite medical examination, the report with regard to the nature of injuries found on her was not exhibited is not so crucial for proving the occurrence so as to discredit the entire occurrence itself. 6. PW 2, grandfather of PW 1, has deposed that when he came back to his house, there was a crowd collected outside and PW 1 informed him with regard to the occurrence and the conduct of the Appellant. Likewise, PW 3 has specifically deposed having seen the appellant coming out of the house of PW 1 and the latter standing with a cooking spoon in her hand with which the witness had stated of assaulting the Appellant. He also proved Exhibit P/5, the seizure of broken bangles from the room of PW 1 in his presence. 7. The place of occurrence has been proved from the spot map marked Exhibit P/4 by PW 5 Tumamlal Devhare, the Patwari. Under Section 313, Cr. P.C., the appellant denied the allegation but offered no plausible explanation or denial for having gone to the house of PW 1. 8. The alleged contradictions between S. 161 Cr. P.C. statement of PW 1 and the deposition in Court has adequately been considered by the Trial Judge. Under Section 313, Cr. P.C., the appellant denied the allegation but offered no plausible explanation or denial for having gone to the house of PW 1. 8. The alleged contradictions between S. 161 Cr. P.C. statement of PW 1 and the deposition in Court has adequately been considered by the Trial Judge. The Court finds no reason to take a different view from that taken by the Trial Judge that even if PW 1 did not mention the intrinsic details of the occurrence step by step of the manner in which the Appellant had conducted himself after entering the house of PW 1, they were minor discrepancies which did not materially affect the prosecution case and evidence with regard to the occurrence. It has rightly been urged on behalf of the State that the alleged discrepancies or contradictions if they can be called so, are trivial in nature not affecting the credibility of the prosecution case with regard to the date, place and manner of occurrence. The fact that in such cases of occurrence taking place inside the house when no independent witness may be available, the evidence of the prosecutrix victim PW 1 becomes crucial. No evidence has been led why the minor girl would falsely implicate the Appellant and in the process risk her own reputation in an Indian Society. 9. The Appellant has already been acquitted of the charge under Section 506(B), I.P.C. and Section 3(11) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. At the relevant point of time, the offence under Section 354, I.P.C. was bailable and maximum punishment that could be imposed was of two years. Under Section 451, I.P.C., the punishment for house trespass to commit an offence is also two years except for theft for which it was seven years. 10. That leaves the only question with regard to the sentence imposed upon the Appellant and whether the submission that it should be reduced to the period undergone be accepted or not. 11. The Appellant was approximately 38 years of age on the date of occurrence. He was thus an adult well aware of his actions and was known to the victim. The victim was a minor aged 15 years. He took advantage of her being alone at home to act consciously by attempting to outrage her modesty inside her own house where she considered herself to be safe. He was thus an adult well aware of his actions and was known to the victim. The victim was a minor aged 15 years. He took advantage of her being alone at home to act consciously by attempting to outrage her modesty inside her own house where she considered herself to be safe. The act of entering her house after confirming that she was alone speaks with regard to his intentions. Even if the offence was bailable on the date of occurrence, the Court cannot ignore the sensitivity required on its part with regard to the minor victim. Justice in a criminal trial cannot be only accused centric. The fact that the Appellant may have gone ahead in years will not wash off the offence committed by him if he had acted so rashly unconcerned with the consequences with an act and that too with a minor. In State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash, (2002) 5 SCC 745 : 2002 Cri. L.J. 2951 it was observed as follows:- "19. Child rape cases are cases of perverse lust for sex where even innocent children are not spared in pursuit of sexual pleasure. There cannot be anything more obscene than this. It is a crime against humanity. Many such cases are not even brought to light because of the social stigma attached thereto. According to some surveys, there has been a steep rise in child rape cases. Children need special care and protection. In such cases, responsibility on the shoulders of the courts is more onerous so as to provide proper legal protection to these children. Their physical and mental immobility call for such protection. Children are the natural resource of our country. They are the country's future. Hope of tomorrow rests on them. In our country, a girl child is in a very vulnerable position and one of the modes of her exploitation is rape besides other modes of sexual abuse. These factors point towards a different approach required to be adopted....." 12. In Raju Pandurang Mahale vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, AIR 2004 SC 1677 : 2004 Cri. L.J. 1441 it was observed as follows at paragraph-12: "12. What constitutes an outrage to female modesty is nowhere defined. The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. In Raju Pandurang Mahale vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, AIR 2004 SC 1677 : 2004 Cri. L.J. 1441 it was observed as follows at paragraph-12: "12. What constitutes an outrage to female modesty is nowhere defined. The essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive. Modesty in this Section is an attribute associated with female human beings as a class. It is a virtue which attaches to a female owing to her sex. The act of pulling a woman, removing her saree, coupled with a request for sexual intercourse, is such as would be an outrage to the modesty of a woman: and knowledge, that modesty is likely to be outraged, is sufficient to constitute the offence without any deliberate intention having such outrage alone for its object. As indicated above, the word 'modesty' is not defined in I.P.C. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (Third Edn.) defines the word 'modesty' in relation to woman as follows: "Decorous in manner and conduct; not forward or lower Shame-fast; Scrupulously chaste." 13. In the facts of the case, the nature of offence and the evidence available, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the conviction imposed by the Trial Court. 14. The Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith and be taken into custody immediately to serve the remaining period of conviction. The sentences shall run concurrently. The appeal is dismissed.