JUDGMENT : Ratnaker Bhengra, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.03.2003 passed in S.T. Case No. 133 of 2002/07 of 2003 by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Jamtara whereby and where under the appellant has been found guilty under section 354 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year. The period of his custody was ordered to be set-off against the period of sentence. 2. The prosecution case as given by the informant Victim (P.W. 5) is that the informant in the morning at about 5.00 a. m., on 12.10.2002 had collected cow dung in a small basket and had gone to throw it in a ditch situated in the side of the house of Mazura Rai. As soon as she threw the cow dung, appellant Subhas aged about 20 years came towards the informant and put vermilion on the head of the informant and thereafter the appellant put his hand into the brassiere of the informant and attempted to tear the same. Thereafter the appellant threw down the informant on the ground and untied the rope of her salwar with an intention to forcibly commit rape of the informant. The informant raised alarm on which her mother, brother Bapan Rai and neighbour namely, Budhan Rai, Kalipada Rai and others reached there. By that time, the appellant was attempting and applying his full force to commit rape. On the intervention of the brother of the informant and villagers the appellant left the informant and went into his house. The appellant was saying loudly that he will not leave her. It is further alleged that on several occasions the accused had threatened the informant to commit rape against her. 3. On the basis of aforesaid Fard Beyan, Nala P.S. Case No. 72 of 2002 dated 12.10.2002 was registered under sections 376/511 of the I.P.C. and police took up investigation. After completing the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellant. It appears that after the cognizance, the case was committed to the court of sessions as the offence under section 376/511 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the court of sessions. 4. It appears that the appellant has denied all the charges levelled against him and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and said that he is innocent. 5. 4. It appears that the appellant has denied all the charges levelled against him and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and said that he is innocent. 5. The trial was held and concluded and the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offences under section 354 of the I.P.C. for R.I. of one year. 6. The prosecution had examined altogether six witnesses. P.W. 5, is the informant/victim of this case. She has deposed at paragraph no. 1 that on the date of occurrence, she had gone to throw cow dung beside her house. Accused came running and caught hold of her from behind. He put his hand inside her brassiere and untied her salwer. He forcibly put vermilion on her head. She has further deposed that she restrained him, her mother, brother Bapan Rai, Budhan Rai, Kalipad Rai and other villagers came then accused fled away. At para 3, she deposed that accused did such act with intent to molest her. At pra 7, she deposed that accused wanted to marry her. The signature of informant on compromise petition is marked as Ext-A. 7. P.W. 4 is Jananabala Dasi, who is the mother of informant. She is the eye witness of the occurrence. At para 1, she has deposed that informant had gone to throw cow dung. On her cry, she went to the place of occurrence and saw that accused had threw her down and untied her salwar and attempted to outrage her modesty. At para 4, she has deposed that she heard the sound of informant “bachoo bachoo”. The place of throwing cow dung is to the south of her house. At para 12, she said that informant was lying on the ground. At para 13, she said that she saw the accused from a distance of 5 hands. 8. P.W. 1 is Kalipada Rai, who is the neighbour of the informant, he has been declared hostile. P.W. 2 is Budhan Rai, neighbour of the informant. He has been also declared hostile. P.W. 3 is Bapan Rai, who is brother of informant. He is the eye witness of the occurrence. At para 1, he has deposed that informant had gone to throw cow dung. On her hulla, when he went to place of occurrence, he saw vermilion on the head of the informant and her clothes were open. P.W. 3 is Bapan Rai, who is brother of informant. He is the eye witness of the occurrence. At para 1, he has deposed that informant had gone to throw cow dung. On her hulla, when he went to place of occurrence, he saw vermilion on the head of the informant and her clothes were open. Then accused seeing him fled away and entered to the house of Kalipada Rai. 9. P.W. 6 is Suresh Prasaid Singh, who is the I.O. of this Case. He has recorded the fardbayan of informant which is marked as Ext.-2. At para 3 of his deposition, he said that place of occurrence is the ditch situated in her land where cow dung is thrown. At the place of occurrence, he found vermilion. He also saw some vermilion on the back side of her frock. 10. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant has taken us to the major points of the prosecution witness's depositions. He has submitted that there was a compromise or attempt to compromise was made between the victim and the appellant. He has also said that the compromise was marked as Exhibit-A. Counsel for the appellant has said that except the victim and the mother of the girl concerned, no independent witness has come forward to justify that they have actually seen the occurrence, so in absence of independent witnesses, the appellant cannot be held liable to be guilty. He has indicated para 5 of the depositions of P.W. 3 and said that apparently there was former dispute between the parties, hence the allegations has been made falsely. Counsel for the appellant has also said that there is also difference in the depositions of P.W. 3, 4 and 5 and therefore, the evidences cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the investigation is faulty, hence not reliable. Pointing to the depositions of P.W. 5, further he has pointed out para 17 and said that the victim girl has herself admitted that there was dispute between themselves. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the investigation is faulty, hence not reliable. Pointing to the depositions of P.W. 5, further he has pointed out para 17 and said that the victim girl has herself admitted that there was dispute between themselves. Counsel for the appellant has also said that if offence of the sexual nature is taken to be true then at least clothes of the girl should have been seized so that they could be examined and the case of the prosecution made stronger but since there is no truth in the accusation, hence no clothes were seized and it has not been exhibited. He has further said that the victim is claiming to be of tender age and she was not even medically examined to determine her age so no liability accrues to the appellant because of the claiming of the tender age. It could not stand in the absence of medical evidence. 11. On the other hand, learned Additional P.P. has said that it is apparent from the record available that intention was there and also act was committed and it would be difficult to deny the same. From the evidence available regarding differences in the time of commission of crime, which has been raised by the appellant, he says that this is no argument because in the fardbeyan, the girl has stated the time as 5.00 a.m., on 12.10.2002 as well as in deposition. Learned APP also said that even the prosecution witnesses P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6 have said that the occurrence took place in the morning, so occurrence is not denied and the time is also stated in the morning so minor difference will not absolve the occurrence of the crime. P.W. 5, victim herself has said that the occurrence took place in the morning then the FIR was lodged on the same day. He has said that the sections for which the appellant has been charged under section 376/511 of the IPC that pertains to any woman irrespective of the age, whereas she was minor or major and would at least not absolve him of the liability under section 376 of the IPC. He had attempted to argue that the offence for which he ought to have been convicted, should have been section 376 rather section 354 of the IPC. He had attempted to argue that the offence for which he ought to have been convicted, should have been section 376 rather section 354 of the IPC. Learned APP has also said that there is no question of compromise. 12. Having heard the submissions, I have carefully gone through the evidence available on record. It is seen that there are two witnesses to the occurrence of the crime. One is P.W. 5, who is victim herself and other is P.W.4, who is mother of the informant. P.W.5, in her evidence, has narrated that she had gone to throw cow dung beside her house, when accused came running and caught hold of her from behind. He put his hand inside her brassiere and untied her salwar. He forcibly put vermilion on her head. She tried to restrain him. When her mother, brother and other villagers came then the appellant fled away. P.W. 4 is the mother of informant. P.W. 4 in her deposition has deposed that her daughter had gone to throw cow dung at a designated place and on alarm being raised by her daughter, she went to the place of occurrence and she witnessed that the appellant had thrown her down and untied her salwar and attempted to outrage her modesty. In this case the evidence of the victim herself, who is being consistent, with what she has said in the fardbeyan and even in the evidence can be relied upon. However, in this case, apart from that victim herself also her mother witnessed the occurrence. In such cases, normally, when she claims that her modesty was outraged, it is normally considered sustainable. However, when there is another reliable witnesses then the evidence becomes doubly stronger. Such allegations are generally not made unless there is some element of truth in them. P.W. 3, is brother of the informant. From his deposition, it seems that he heard the alarm raised by the victim girl and then when he went to the place of occurrence, he saw the vermilion on the head of the informant and her clothes were open. He saw the accused fleeing away. P.W. 3, is brother of the informant. From his deposition, it seems that he heard the alarm raised by the victim girl and then when he went to the place of occurrence, he saw the vermilion on the head of the informant and her clothes were open. He saw the accused fleeing away. From his evidence though he is not eye witness to the occurrence of the molestation directly but from the circumstances in which he has appeared and saw vermilion on the forehead and the cloths of the victim was open and the appellant was fleeing away, it can safely be said that the allegations made by the victim are true. Finally, P.W. 6, is the I.O. of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-2 and moreover, he has said that he had visited the place of occurrence where appellant apparently threw the victim and at the place of occurrence, he had found vermilion. He has also said that he had also seen some vermilion on the back side of the frock though the soil has not been seized. His deposition taken with what the victim herself has deposed along with the depositions of the second eye witness, who is mother of the victim, all the situations point towards the guilt of the appellant. 13. Having gone through the records of the case, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Hence, the judgment of conviction dated 31.3.2003 passed by the learned court below is upheld. 14. However, since it is an old case and the appellant has already spent some time in custody and undergone the hardship of trial and uncertainties, his sentence is modified to the period already undergone in custody. He is set free from the liability of bail bond. 15. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, with modification in sentence.