ORDER : Ratnaker Bhengra, J. 1. This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.2.2003 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Pakur in S.C. No. 8 of 2000 whereby the above named appellant has been found guilty and convicted under section 354 of the of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months for the said offence. 2. The prosecution case, as made out from the Fardbayan of informant Rehena Bibi wife of Abdul Latif aged about 25 years of village Sangrampur P.S. Pakur (M) District Pakur recorded by S.I. Ajay Kumar Singh Officer In-charge of Pakur (M) P.S. on 17.5.1999 is that the informant was staying in her house along with her three daughters but her husband was working at Deoghar. It is alleged that on the midnight of 14-15.5.1999, that is the day of Friday when she was sleeping in her house along with her daughters and the daughter of her neighbour in her courtyard and door of the courtyard was locked from inside, all on a sudden the appellant/accused Mustaque Sheikh, who hails from the same village, jumped over the wall and entered into the courtyard. Then with bad intention he caught hold of her. When she resisted him persistently, her blouse, sari and petticoat was torn by the accused and thereafter she became half naked. Due to her persistent resistance and alarm, thereafter her husband's elder brother and wife of her husband's brother and other villagers came in the courtyard and raised alaram. Hearing the voice of so many people of the village, Mustaque Sheikh again Jumped over the wall and thereafter fled away from the place of occurrence. Even while fleeing away, many people saw and identified him. Regarding this incident, a panchayati was held in the village but Mustaque Sheikh was not present in the meeting and refused to obey the verdict of Panchayati. It is also alleged that earlier he had also committed such act in the village of which entire village is also familiar with. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan made by the informant Rehena Bibi present case was registered against the accused person at Pakur (M) Police Station as P.S. Case No. 85 of 1999 under sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan made by the informant Rehena Bibi present case was registered against the accused person at Pakur (M) Police Station as P.S. Case No. 85 of 1999 under sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. After conclusion of the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet and accordingly cognizance of the offence under sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code was taken and case was committed to the court of sessions where it was registered as S.C. No. 8 of 2000. Charge was framed under section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and trial was held. 4. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charge examined altogether eight witnesses, out of whom PW-6 Kameshwar Bhagat was declared hostile while PW-8 Md. Hannan is a formal witness. PW-4 Rehena Bibi is the informant and victim and PW-2 Rahena Khatoon, who is the niece of the informant, is an eye witness and rest of the witnesses PWs. 1, 3, 5 and 7 are hearsay witnesses who claimed to have heard about the occurrence from the victim lady. 5. The learned trial Judge, after conclusion of the trial, convicted the accused under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. 6. PW-4 Rehana Bibi, who is the informant herself in this case, in para 1 she deposed that the incident is of three years and four months ago on a Friday night and it was then round about 12 O' Clock at night. She was sleeping at night along with her children and Rahima Khatoon, the daughter of her neighbour and at that time Kerosene lamp was burning, just then, accused Musstaque Sheikh from the same village jumped over the wall and entered into the house to outrage and molest and started doing indecent act with her and he physically caught hold of her and torn her blouse and sari whereby she became half naked. She started screaming and also her child started crying and then her husband's elder brother and husband's brother's wife and the uncle of her husband and others assembled there, accused Mustaqaue Sheikh jumped over the wall and fled away. She told about the incident to the people of the village who gathered there. She started screaming and also her child started crying and then her husband's elder brother and husband's brother's wife and the uncle of her husband and others assembled there, accused Mustaqaue Sheikh jumped over the wall and fled away. She told about the incident to the people of the village who gathered there. She further deposed that regarding the incident a Panchayati was held at the village in which Mustaque did not come and thereafter after three days she went to the police station along with Shohrab Sheikh, Hasim Sheikh and Hamida Bibi. In the police station she told about the incident to the Officer In-charge and he wrote out what she had told him and thereafter it was read over to her and she on finding it correct put her signature on it and she proved her signature on the same which has been marked at Ext.1/1. 7. In cross-examination informant PW-4 has deposed that one of her daughter Rehena Khatoon was grown up and she had also slept with her. In paragraph-9 of her deposition she deposed that she was asleep and when some one jumped over the wall, she awoke and then Mustaque Sheikh straight way started advancing towards her and came near her and sat down beside her and then she did not make alarm. She did not wake up the children and while he was very slowly lifting her sari she made no alarm and thereafter he sat down beside her. He started removing her blouse, even then she made no alarm, nevertheless she tried pushing away from herself and she was wearing a brassiere. On her opposition, he started scuffling physically with her whereby her children woke up. She further deposed that when the children woke up, she raised alarm and thereafter Mustaque fled away. 8. PW-2 is Rahena Khatoon. She stated in para 1 of her deposition that the incident is of about three years ago and it was at about 1 O' Clock at night. While she was sleeping beside Rehena Bibi, who is her aunt, Mustaque entered into her house and caught hold of Rehena Bibi physically and she woke up and started crying. Mustaque tore the cloths of Rehena Bibi and on alarm being raised, Mustaque fled away by jumping over the wall of the courtyard. She also deposed that she saw Mustaque fleeing away and identified him in court. Mustaque tore the cloths of Rehena Bibi and on alarm being raised, Mustaque fled away by jumping over the wall of the courtyard. She also deposed that she saw Mustaque fleeing away and identified him in court. In her cross examination in para 4 she stated that she and Rehena Bibi were sleeping on the same cot in the courtyard and house was empty and when she started crying the accused fled away. She has denied lighting the lamp after Mustaque ran away. The lamp was burning from before. 9. PW-1 is Hussain Sheikh. In para 1 of his evidence he deposed that the incident is of about three years and a quarter ago and occurred between 12 O' Clock at night on Friday and at that time he was in his house. On hearing alarm he went to the house of Rehena Bibi. He saw Mustataque Sheikh coming out from the house of Rehena Bibi and fleeing away. He further deposed that being asked, she told him that Mustaqaue had come to do indecent act but he could not succeed. He further deposed that it was informed that accused opened her sari and physically caught hold of her. He further states that on alarm being raised, many people had gathered there such as Kuku Bhagat, Hasim Sheikh and Shohasrab Sheikh. In paragraph 3 of his deposition he stated that regarding incident a Panchayati was held and thereafter a case was lodged against him. He recognised the accused in court. 10. PW-7 is Sohrab Sheikh. He deposed that the incident is of three years and four months ago on Friday and he was in the house. Round about 12 O' Clock he heard hulla of Rehena Bibi and on hearing the same, he went to the house of Rehena Bibi where he saw that Rehena Bibi was crying. On being asked he was told that Mustaque had come and tried to outrage and molest. He further deposed that Rehana Bibi's blouse and petticoat were torn. 11. PW-3 is Hamida Bibi. She deposed that the incident is of three years and three months ago and it was round about 1:00 A.M at night and she was sleeping in her house. She awoke on alarm and saw that Rehena Bibi was crying. He further deposed that Rehana Bibi's blouse and petticoat were torn. 11. PW-3 is Hamida Bibi. She deposed that the incident is of three years and three months ago and it was round about 1:00 A.M at night and she was sleeping in her house. She awoke on alarm and saw that Rehena Bibi was crying. She went to house of Rehena Bibi and on asking her she told that Mustaque had come to outrage and molest and tore her cloths and thereafter he fled away. She has further stated that there was scuffle between the appellant with her. She further stated that she along with victim went to the police station where Rehena Bibi lodged a case. She has further stated that she put her signature on the document and she has proved her signature which has been marked as Ext.1. She also stated that she identified the accused in court. 12. PW-8 is Md. Hannan. He deposed that the formal FIR and fardbeyan is in the hand writing of the then Officer Inchrage, Sanjay Kumar and has been signed by him and he recognised them so. He proved them which are marked as Exts. 3 and 4. 13. PW-5 Hussain Sheikh has also said that Rehana Bibi informed him that appellant had come to outrage her modesty and that the police had seized some of her clothes before him. He has also disclosed some knowledge of the Panchayat. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant has asserted that PWs. 1, 3, 5 and 7 are hearsay witnesses. Only PW-4, who is the informant in this case and PW-2, who is the niece, have supported the prosecution case. It is also stated that deposition of PWs 1 and 3 are contradictory to each other on the point of injury on the person of the victim and their evidence cannot be relied upon. He has also pointed out the paragraph-9 of the deposition of the PW-4, who is the informant in this case, and stated that when accused came to her courtyard by jumping over the wall, she awoke from sleep but she did not raise alarm and accused came to her and sat down beside her and slowly started removing her sari, nevertheless she did not raise alarm. The learned counsel further stated that when the accused started removing her blouse, she did not resist, in view of this fact she is a consenting party. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that by this conduct it is proved that they are known to each other. The learned counsel for the appellant has further stated that the victim raised alarm, only to the hide the fact that she is a consenting party from the children and others who also woke up as she is also involved in illicit relation with the appellant. The learned counsel further stated that informant is a consenting party because she did not have any injury on her body. He has stated that no clothes was seized by the Investigating Officer from the possession of the victim nor produced before the court as material exhibits and therefore, the allegation levelled against appellant is false and in any way I.O. has not been examined. It is also submitted that the victim had a major daughter who was apparently also sleeping beside her and she has not been examined and it is a crucial mistake on the part of the prosecution because through her examination the real truth would have emerged. It is also submitted that husband of the victim was not examined. Another line of the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant is that the allegation is made by the informant due to the prior enmity as it is evident from the deposition of the PW-6. In his cross-examination it is stated that a fight took place between appellant's son and daughter of PW-3 Hamida Bibi prior to the incident and as informant and PW-3 are related because of this fact the informant had made such allegation against him. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that three days delay, in lodging the FIR is not acceptable as it was lodged after some thought and hence allegations levelled against the appellant are to be disbelieved. He has also reiterated that the I.O. was not examined and FIR was not proved. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that victim and appellant may have been acquainted with each other but perhaps not intimate to each other, but of course they belonged to the same village so she might have been known to him. He has also reiterated that the I.O. was not examined and FIR was not proved. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that victim and appellant may have been acquainted with each other but perhaps not intimate to each other, but of course they belonged to the same village so she might have been known to him. So when he jumped over the wall and came to her and sat down beside her and then slowly started removing her sari but she did not raise alarm. She further deposed that the accused person started removing her blouse and in spite of that she did not resist such act. From the deposition of the PW-4 informant it appears that there was a consent and she did not make any protest when sari and blouse were removed by the accused. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that even opening her blouse and till that extent she did not raise any alarm otherwise she would have raised alarm immediately after appellant jumped over the wall but she did not do so. The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to argue this case that there was no injury on the body of the victim and that only can be possible because she was a consenting party. 15. Regarding the aspect of the non-examination of the I.O. learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon two judgment namely Sanjay @ Gulabi Mahto vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), 2006 (3) JCR 179 (Jhr) and Lakhan Oraon and Others vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), 2008 (4) JLJR 77 . 16. Finally, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the matter is old one. The occurrence of which took place in May, 1999, almost 17 years have passed and at the day of occurrence he was around 45 years now he is about 60 years old and this was the first offence. Considering the above, lenient view may be take in awarding sentence against the convict. In this back ground he has relied on four citation namely Ram Jatan Yadav vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (1) East Cr. Case 95 (Pat), Tengar Yadav vs. State of Bihar, 2007 (3) East Cr. Case 107 (Pat), Lalan Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar, 2007 (3) East Cr. In this back ground he has relied on four citation namely Ram Jatan Yadav vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (1) East Cr. Case 95 (Pat), Tengar Yadav vs. State of Bihar, 2007 (3) East Cr. Case 107 (Pat), Lalan Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar, 2007 (3) East Cr. Case 469 (Pat) and Sudam Pandey @ Pandit and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another, 2002 (1) East Cr. Case 192 (Pat). He also pleaded that he may be given the benefit of probation of offenders Act, 1998. 17. The learned counsel for the State has tried to highlight certain aspect of the matter on the deposition of the witnesses. He has stated that apart from the deposition of the informant, it is seen from the deposition of PW-3 that she saw the victim crying and on asking, she told that Mustaque had come and outraged her modesty and run away. He also pointed out the deposition of the PW-2 and stated that she was sleeping with the victim and she has described the event which would indicate that the appellant is guilty. He has also referred to the deposition of PW-1 and stated that he had seen Mustaque fleeing away. In this regard a panchayati was held in the village in which appellant was not present in that meeting. He has also stated that when the others villagers inquired from the victim as to what had happened then this witness was informed that appellant had come to do some bad acts, therefore this victim is most reliable because he happens to be a neighbour even though this witness is not direct eye witness to the alleged crime of molestation. He saw the present appellant fleeing away which would suggest that he was involved in some molestation. He has also referred to the deposition of the PW-1 and 4 in which it has been mentioned that panchayati was held regarding the incident which would only go to prove that something had occurred. So also this fact of panchayati further strengthen case against the appellant. Moreover appellant did not even bother to attend the Panchayati. He has referred to the deposition of PW-5 and stated that on the contrary police had seized the torn clothes and blouse of victim in his presence. So also this fact of panchayati further strengthen case against the appellant. Moreover appellant did not even bother to attend the Panchayati. He has referred to the deposition of PW-5 and stated that on the contrary police had seized the torn clothes and blouse of victim in his presence. He has also referred to the deposition of the PW-8 and submitted that he proved the FIR and fardbeyan. He has also stated that from the evidence of the witnesses it appears that the instance case is made out of molestation and there is no question of consent given by the victim and hence conviction of the appellant be upheld. Findings 18. This is a case of an assault on women with intent to outrage her modesty and in such cases the version of the victim carries considerable force. The alleged victim and informant has been consistent in her fardbeyan and her deposition that the appellant jumped over the wall, not via the door and began disrobing her. She may not have immediately raised alarm, but she did. This case is supported by PW-2 Rahena Khatoon, who was sleeping with the victim on the same spot. Apparently, they were sleeping in the same cot and she had woken up and started crying and seen the torn clothes of the victim and then seen the appellant fleeing away. It may well be asked, if the affair was consensual what was the necessity of the torn clothes or torn blouse. The presence of two eye witnesses greatly strengthens the prosecution case against the appellant. Other witnesses who reached there on alarm also support the prosecution case. PW-1 reached there on alarm, where many people had gathered. He was also aware about the failed panchayati. PW-7 also reached there on alarm and saw the victim crying and that her blouse and petticoat was torn. PW-3 had also seen the victim crying. So it is rather clear from the direct witnesses and the persons reaching on alarm that the prosecution case is convincingly proved. 19. The non-examination of the I.O. may not carry much weight for the appellant, since I have the evidences of the victim, PW-4, which is also supported by another witness PW-2, who was also sleeping there and saw the torn clothes and the appellant fleeing away. 19. The non-examination of the I.O. may not carry much weight for the appellant, since I have the evidences of the victim, PW-4, which is also supported by another witness PW-2, who was also sleeping there and saw the torn clothes and the appellant fleeing away. The evidence of PW-1 of joint panchayati would also be supportive that the incident did take place. 20. Hence, having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having perused materials available on record and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution has been able to prove its case for the offence punishable under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, I uphold the conviction of the appellant dated 20.2.2003 as awarded by the learned trial court. However, since this is an old case of the year 1999 and he has undergone hardship and uncertainties of trial and appeal, there is modification in sentence by reducing it to three months. 21. Since the appellant is on provisional bail confirmed by this court vide order dated 10.3.2003, therefore, his bail bond is directed to be cancelled and the trial court is directed to take all necessary steps in accordance with law against the appellant for serving out the remaining sentence. 22. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with the above modification in sentence.