JUDGMENT : This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 10.4.2003 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 242 of 1999, whereby and whereunder, the appellant was convicted under Sections 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.5000/ under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of fine to undergo a simple imprisonment of 15 days. However, the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case, as per written report of the informant Nilu Devi, is that on 11.08.1998 (Tuesday) her husband Santosh Prasad Verma had gone to duty and she was alone in the house. Around 8:00 p.m., her younger brother-in-law Rajendra Prasad, son of Late Sarjoo Prasad (appellant herein) entered the house and molested her and attempted to rape her. She opposed him, on which, he pushed her to the floor and started pressing her neck and hitting her, due to which, she was hurt. She raised alarm for help. On her alarm, her neighbour Datu Majhi arrived at, on which, Rajendra Prasad left her and ran away. Then she told other persons about the incident, who are her neighbours. When her husband came, she also told him about the entire incident. Because it was night, she did not go to the police station then. 3. Thereafter, a case was registered under Sections 341/323/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code as Seraikella P.S. Case No.78/1998, corresponding to G.R. Case No.492/1998. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet, accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Trial No. 242 of 1999. Charge was framed under Sections 376/511 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and he was put on trial. 4. Prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses to prove its case and the learned trial Judge placing reliance on evidences and documents available on records, held the appellant guilty and inflicted sentence, as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 5. PW4 Nilu Devi is the informant. 4. Prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses to prove its case and the learned trial Judge placing reliance on evidences and documents available on records, held the appellant guilty and inflicted sentence, as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 5. PW4 Nilu Devi is the informant. She has deposed that the incident is of 11.08.1998 (Tuesday) between 7:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. At that time, she was alone in the house and her husband had gone for his duty. At that time, her younger brother-in-law Rajendra Prasad entered the house and started conversing with her. He then started molesting her, catching hold of her hand and pulling her. When she refused to go then he caught hold of her neck and pushed her to the floor and also caught hold of her legs and started pulling her. When she raised alarm, the accused left her and ran away. She came out and told about the incident to Datu Majhi. Her husband came at 9:30 p.m. and she told him about the incident. At night they did not go to the police station. On the next day, they went to the police station. On her saying, her husband wrote out the report, which was read out to her. On finding it correct, she has put her signature on it. Her signature has been marked as Ext.1/1. She has deposed that police sent her for treatment to the Doctor and the Doctor treated her. She has deposed that her treatment was conducted at Saraikella Government Hospital. She has deposed that accused was in Court and she recognized him. In the cross examination, she has deposed that her husband has altogether five brothers. All the brothers live separately. Her mother-in-law is alive. At the time of incident, her mother-in-law was living with them. Currently, she is living with the accused. Because her mother-in-law was staying with them, there was no abuses made by the accused against her. After the incident, there has been conversation with the accused. Even now, relationship is good. There used to be no problem. Now his wife and children do not come in the house. Accused used to come to our house but he does not enter the house. He talks from outside the house itself. He comes and talks to her children. After the incident, there is no conversation by her and her husband with the accused. There used to be no problem. Now his wife and children do not come in the house. Accused used to come to our house but he does not enter the house. He talks from outside the house itself. He comes and talks to her children. After the incident, there is no conversation by her and her husband with the accused. During the incident, the accused did not stay in the village but he used to stay in Usha More. During the incident, her mother-in-law was not there. She had gone somewhere in the neighbourhood but she returned soon thereafter. When her mother-in-law came, she informed immediately to her about the incident. She has further deposed that during the incident Rajendra was in the house for about 20 minutes. In these 20 minutes, apart from the accused, there was no one else with her in the room. At that time, earthen lamp was burning. Incident took place outside the room i.e. in the open courtyard. When she was sitting the accused, caught hold of her hand and pulled her. In the courtyard, there was no light. Accused pulled her about 810 hands. She has further deposed that he was pulling her when she was resisting him. He was joking with her and telling her indecent things. He said let us go inside the house. When she was resisting, she did not get hurt. When she raised alarm, Rajendra started hitting her. He was pressing her neck and she fell on the floor. She has further deposed that when he was pressing her neck, she could not raise alarm. After pressing the neck, he threw her and ran away. After how much time he ran away she could not say. She has further deposed that during the incident her ‘Saree’ did not tear. She was wearing bangles and the bangles were broken and that she received injuries on the neck and there was swelling. She has further deposed that she has also received injuries on left thigh and there was swelling but there was no bleeding. She has further deposed that accused went inside the house and lay down. He remained lying for 1015 minutes. When he was lying in the house, she was raising alarm, the accused ran away before Datu Majhi came. After the accused had gone, her husband came. She has further deposed that accused went inside the house and lay down. He remained lying for 1015 minutes. When he was lying in the house, she was raising alarm, the accused ran away before Datu Majhi came. After the accused had gone, her husband came. When the accused was lying in the house, her mother-in-law had also come. At that time, she was not inside the house. Because of fear, she was outside. He was talking with her mother-in-law. Then she went to Tiyo where her elder brother-in-law resides and told about the incident to his wife. She has deposed that Tiyo is about 1617 kms. from the house and she had gone in a 407 vehicle and it takes about 4045 minutes to go there. She returned back around 9:00 p.m. 9:15 p.m. By then, her husband had not returned. Regarding the incident, she has told to her husband, her elder brother-in-law’s wife and also to some people in the village. 6. PW1 is Santosh Prasad Verma. He is the husband of the informant. He has deposed that the incident is of 11.08.1998 and on that day, he had gone for duty and had returned at 9:30 p.m. He has deposed that his wife informed him that Rajendra Prasad in his absence had come, entered the house and done indecent acts and for doing further indecent act, he pushed his wife on the floor and when his wife had opposed him then he had pressed her neck and pulled her to the floor. Because his wife opposed and raised alarm, he ran away. He has deposed that he did not go to the police station at the night but on the next day, he had gone to the police station at the instance of his wife. He had written about the incident. He has recognized the written report which he said is in his writing. He had read it out to his wife and then his wife has signed on it. He has proved the written report as Ext.1. He has also deposed that police gave him paper with writing on it and instructed him to go to the hospital for treatment of his wife and accordingly, he went with his wife to Seraikella Government Hospital where his wife was treated. He has deposed that he will be able to recognize the accused. 7. He has also deposed that police gave him paper with writing on it and instructed him to go to the hospital for treatment of his wife and accordingly, he went with his wife to Seraikella Government Hospital where his wife was treated. He has deposed that he will be able to recognize the accused. 7. PW5 is Doctor Bhiva Sharan. She has examined the informant. She has stated that she found two injuries on the informant (i) swelling and abrasion both side of neck ½” x ¼” (ii) swelling on the back of left thigh. Doctor has proved her injury report Ext.2. 8. PW6 is the IO and he has proved Ext.3, the endorsement of registration of the present P.S. case to be in the hand writing of the then O/C, P.S. Seraikella. He has proved Ext.4 the formal FIR. The IO has vide para 2 has stated that he had seen visible sign of injury on the person of PW4 and he had sent the lady for the medical examination vide a requisition letter which is Ext.5 overleaf of which is Ext.2 the medical report of injury of lady by PW5 the Doctor. The IO vide para 3 has corroborated further the place of occurrence being the courtyard of the house of PW1. As stated earlier, PW4 the victim lady has herself stated vide para 12 that the occurrence took place at the courtyard of the house. It is thus found that the entire prosecution case as stated by the lady gets well substantiated and corroborated by her consistent unimpeachable evidence. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has read out Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and pointed out the ingredients that there must be criminal force; there must be intention to outrage the modesty; there must be a woman molested, but the question remains whether there was actually outraging of modesty of the woman concerned. Learned counsel has submitted that the Indian Penal Code does not define ‘modesty’ but the Hon’ble Supreme Court has described ‘modesty’ in the case of “Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs) and another Versus Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 194 . In para 14 the Apex Court observed as follows: “14. Since the word 'modesty' has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code we may profitably look into its dictionary meaning. In para 14 the Apex Court observed as follows: “14. Since the word 'modesty' has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code we may profitably look into its dictionary meaning. According to Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd Edn.) modesty is the quality of being modest and in relation to woman means “womanly propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct”. The word 'modest' in relation to woman is defined in the above dictionary as “decorous in manner and conduct; not forward or lewd; shamefast”. Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language defines modesty as “freedom from coarseness, indelicacy or indecency; a regard for propriety in dress, speech or conduct.” In the Oxford English Dictionary (1933 Edn.) the meaning of the word 'modesty' is given as “womanly propriety of behaviour; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct (in man or woman); reserve or sense of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions”.” Learned counsel has further submitted that no suggestion was made for sexual intercourse and no mischievous joke was made because no precise such suggestion or joke is mentioned. Learned counsel has also submitted that there was land dispute between the parties and therefore, this allegation has been made. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no eye witness to the incident, so it is doubtful whether anything of this kind as alleged has actually occurred. Learned counsel has further submitted that persons who could have been reliable witnesses have turned hostile and referred to PW2 Nuna Ram Mahto and PW3 Rajesh Kumar, who are both hostile witnesses. Learned counsel has also read out from (2004) 4 SCC 379 [Aman Kumar and another Versus State of Haryana] para 13 to point out the ingredients of modesty. The Apex Court has observed as, “13....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 dress 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 IPC. As indicated above, the word “modesty” is not defined in IPC. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (3rd Edn.) defines the word “modesty” in relation to a woman as follows: “Decorous in manner and conduct; not forward or lewd; Shamefast; Scrupulously chaste.” Learned counsel has also submitted that victim has alleged that after outraging her modesty, accused went inside the house and lay down for 1015 minutes, which is not a natural conduct because he then has to flee away but he went to take rest inside the house. Victim has further stated that her mother-in-law came and she was talking to the accused, while she was outside, which would also indicate that nothing of this kind as alleged by her had taken place. Learned counsel has further submitted that the socalled victim has stated that she went to Tiyo where she told about the incident to her elder brother-in-law’s wife, which is at a distance of about 1617 kms. and she has stated that it takes about 45 minutes to go there. So coming and going would take one and half hours and it was night and the husband later on himself said that since it was night, they did not go to the police station. So it is not possible that she travelled that distance at night in such a mental condition and came back and told her husband about the incident. So these all are probably concocted because of land dispute. Learned counsel has further submitted that ‘Saree’ was not even torn, which would have occurred if any such attempt was made by the appellant. So at the end learned counsel has again submitted that no offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. At the most, offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code may be made out and for which, he has suffered enough during the long period of trial. 10. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, read out Sections 354 and 350 of the Indian Penal Code and submitted that all the ingredients of Section 354 were met. Learned A.P.P. has further submitted that such type of offence does not have any witness and is against the person and body of woman. Victim’s deposition or evidence carries lot of weight. Learned A.P.P. has further submitted that such type of offence does not have any witness and is against the person and body of woman. Victim’s deposition or evidence carries lot of weight. Learned A.P.P. has further submitted that in this case victim is consistent in her evidence what she has stated in the written report and she has repeated in her deposition. So she has supported her initial case and also clarified in her evidence as to what actually occurred. In the written report, she has stated that she was being molested and also attempt to rape was being made and that the accused had caught hold of her hand, pressed her neck and even pulled her on the floor. In her evidence also, she has stated that she was being molested and also attempt to rape was being made and that the accused had caught hold of her hand, pressed her neck and even pulled her on the floor. So she is consistent about the main aspect of the assault on her. She has further clarified that accused was indecently joking with her and making indecent proposals. She has stated in para 13 of her deposition about the injuries on her neck and there was swelling and she has also stated about the injuries on back portion of her thigh and this has been corroborated by the Doctor in her evidence or injury report. Learned A.P.P. has further submitted that hurt on the back side of the thigh suggests that molestation did take place. Learned A.P.P. has further submitted that there was assault made on the woman, which would amount to criminal force. From the evidence of the victim, it is clear that the assault was made with the intent to outrage her modesty or with the knowledge that it would outrage her modesty. Hence, all the ingredients are met and therefore, conviction and sentence passed against the accused-appellant is required to be upheld. 11. I have gone through the case records and heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the sides and based on that, first and foremost, it is seen that the victim PW4, who is the informant, presents credible version of events and is not unbelievable. In Indian society, women will not put out their reputation and modesty for public consumption, more so, women hailing from the rural areas. In Indian society, women will not put out their reputation and modesty for public consumption, more so, women hailing from the rural areas. Victim-informant has made the allegation that when she was alone at night her younger brother-in-law came, caught hold of her hand and also did ‘Chherkhani’ or molested her. In the attempt, she was caught hold of by the neck and also dragged on the floor, as a result of which, she sustained injuries on both sides of the neck and also on the thigh. The Doctor, who examined her on the next day, at the instance of IO, had noticed these injuries in the first place (i) swelling and abrasion both side of neck ½” x ¼” (ii) swelling on the back of left thigh. These injuries are consistent with what she has alleged and the Doctor has corroborated these injuries. It seems that the appellant in order to fulfill his intention, applied considerable force. She narrated the incident to her husband and because it was late night took her to the police station on the next day. So there is no actual delay, as sought to be made out by the learned counsel for the appellant, because the report was made just next day and even the Doctor has said that the injuries were not more than 24 hours old. Husband has proved the written report and also his wife’s signature. IO has deposed that he has seen the injuries on the person of the victim and accordingly, sent the lady for medical examination. The injuries, which the Doctor later on corroborates, indicate that some criminal force had apparently been used by the appellant. IO has further examined the place of occurrence, which is courtyard, as has been said so by PW4. So the existence of the courtyard is also proved. Argument made that the appellant has stayed 1520 minutes and rested in the house is not unbelievable because if the person has motive and will to outrage the modesty of the girl/woman then it may be possible for him to stay little longer in the house itself. So the existence of the courtyard is also proved. Argument made that the appellant has stayed 1520 minutes and rested in the house is not unbelievable because if the person has motive and will to outrage the modesty of the girl/woman then it may be possible for him to stay little longer in the house itself. Argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no eye witness to the occurrence is met by the fact that crime is often committed in absence of witnesses, particularly, crime of heinous nature or even crime that against the body of women because of shame and modesty being attached. General allegations about mischievous jokes and indecent conduct or proposals are answered by the fact and that in such cases, often the details of molestation are not described, therefore, taking the woman’s or the victim’s allegations along with the injuries found on the body, the case being reported immediately on the next day, support of the injuries by the IO, corroboration of the injuries by the Doctor and the brief chain of circumstances, the guilt of the appellant stands concluded. 12. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant under Sections 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. However, considering that the case is of the year 1998, when occurrence took place i.e. about 18 years ago and since then appellant must have faced struggles, hardships and vagaries of trial and that seemingly he has not been in custody for a long time and taking all these circumstances, appellant’s sentence is reduced to three months Simple Imprisonment minus the period undergone. Fine of Rs.5,000/ remains and in default of which he is further directed to undergo 15 days Simple Imprisonment. The convicting or successor Court is directed to issue process for the arrest of the appellant. 13. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with the above modification in the sentence.