JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel and Mr. A. Acharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P appearing for the state. 2. By this petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C, the judgment and order dated 04.12.2013 delivered in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2013 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura has been challenged. By the said judgment dated 04.12.2013, the conviction as returned by the trial court [the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Belonia, South Tripura] has been affirmed. However, the sentence has been modified from 9 (nine) months rigorous imprisonment to 6(six) months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand), in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 1(one) month for committing the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC. It has been also directed that the fine money, if realized, shall be paid to the minor victims (PWs-2 & 5) in equal share through their natural guardian (PWs-1 & 6) respectively. 3. Genesis of the prosecution is rooted in the written ejahar filed on 06.03.2011 by one Shikha Debnath (PW-1) disclosing that the petitioner (aged about 19 years) outraged the modesty of her daughter and another girl (names are withheld for protecting their identity), the victim girls, who are below the age of 10 years. By alluring the victims, according to PW-1, the petitioner attempted to commit rape. But for their resistance, the petitioner failed to rape them, but attempts were made and the criminal force was applied. Finally, the mother of other victim (PW-6) brought the matter to the village Panchayet for appropriate action but the Panchayet did not act at all. Thereafter, being persuaded by the changed circumstances, on 06.03.2011, the written ejahar was lodged to the Officer-in-Charge, Baikhora P.S. Based on the said ejahar, Baikhora P.S. case No. 21 of 2011 was registered under Section 376(2) (f) of the IPC and taken up for investigation. Since the final police report was filed for commission of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC, the substance of accusation was read to the petitioner under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. when the petitioner denied of committing any offence as alleged. 4. Since the final police report was filed for commission of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC, the substance of accusation was read to the petitioner under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. when the petitioner denied of committing any offence as alleged. 4. To substantiate that accusation, the prosecution adduced as many as 10(ten) witnesses including the victims (PWs-2 & 5) and the investigating officer (PW-10). One medical examination report as prepared by Dr. J.S. Reang (PW3) was introduced in the evidence along with the written ejahar and the statement of the victims as recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C Thereafter, the trial court having recorded the petitioner’s response in the examination carried out under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and appreciated the evidence so recorded returned the finding of conviction under Section 354 of the IPC. 5. Being aggrieved by that judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.09.2013 delivered in GR case No.83 of 2011 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Belonia, South Tripura, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 374(3) of the Cr.P.C. being Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2013. The said appeal, however, was dismissed by the said judgment dated 04.12.2013 confirming the finding of conviction. However, the sentence was modified as stated. Now, the said judgment dated 04.12.2013 has been challenged in this petition. 6. Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel and Mr. A. Acharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously argued before this Court that the victims have been tutored and they have deviated from their version as recorded in the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Not only this, even the other witness, such as PW-1 has given such versions which had not been stated in the FIR or before the police officer. She has admitted that she had not mentioned in the FIR that her daughter along with another daughter when playing in the house of PW-6, Smt. Shakti Kar, the petitioner forcibly took them to his room and bolted them that room from inside and thereafter, hit the victim girls when they raised alarm. He allowed them to go out from the said room. They have also in detail stated how the petitioner outraged their modesty. 7. PW-2 is one of the victim girls. She has also given a detailed description of the sexual conduct of the petitioner with her and with PW-2. He allowed them to go out from the said room. They have also in detail stated how the petitioner outraged their modesty. 7. PW-2 is one of the victim girls. She has also given a detailed description of the sexual conduct of the petitioner with her and with PW-2. PW-5 in the trial has corroborated the version of PW-2. Thus, PWs-2 and 5 mutually corroborated their version. Even PW3, namely Dr. J.S. Reang has observed the mark of violence on the person of the victim (PW-5). PW4 is the father of one of the victim girls. He has stated in the same fashion as PW-6 has stated in the trial. PW-7 is the scribe and he has not stated anything of material importance whereas PW8 has confirmed that being a private tutor, he appeared in the house of PW-5 and there he heard that the petitioner attempted to rape PW-5, though his statement was confronted as it appears to the defence that he had improved his version from that which was recorded in the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. PW9, namely Narayan Basu did not stick to his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. As a result, he has been declared hostile to the prosecution’s case. PW 10, Haradhan Basu, the investigating officer, has given a brief description how he conducted the investigation. PW-10 was put under a rigorous cross-examination by the defence to find out the pores in the prosecution’s case so that the investigation can be declared perfunctory as a whole but he had defended his investigation holding that whatever materials he had collected, since those indicated to outraging of the modesty of the two victim girls, he had filed the charge sheet. According to him, there were a sufficient materials to submit the final police report charge-sheeting the petitioner. From the evidence, Mr. Acharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has correctly pointed out that what the victim girls have stated in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., they have departed substantially at the time of making detailed description of the sexual conduct of the petitioner. Mr. Acharji, learned counsel at that stage has argued that when the prosecution witnesses improved their version to such extent, their credibility has been reduced substantially and this Court should not rely on their testimonies. 8. From the other side, Mr. Mr. Acharji, learned counsel at that stage has argued that when the prosecution witnesses improved their version to such extent, their credibility has been reduced substantially and this Court should not rely on their testimonies. 8. From the other side, Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State has strongly refuted analogy advanced by Mr. Acharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner holding that even if it is admitted that there are some versions which are expounded or made definite, for that the entire evidence cannot be washed away. The grain from the chaff must be separated. It cannot be denied that PWs-2 and 5 are the victims of sexual conduct of the petitioner. The petitioner applied the criminal force to outrage the modesty of the minor girls and as such, by discarding the detailed description, the finding of conviction, which is concurrent in nature, shall be affirmed. 9. This Court has taken the pain to go through the evidence and on the face, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved the substance of accusation to the hilt even though PWs-1,2,3,4,5 & 6 in particular, given such detailed version of the occurrence which cannot be gathered either from the FIR or from the statement as recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. But the anxiety of the witnesses also forms the context and thus, this Court is in agreement with the submission of Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. that since the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in the criminal jurisprudence of this country, this Court has the duty to segregate the grain from the chaff. In this exercise, this Court finds that the courts below, whose judgments are under challenge in this petition, did not commit any infirmity which warrants interference from this Court so far the finding of conviction is concerned. As a result, this Court affirms the finding of conviction under Section 354 of the IPC. 10. The offence was committed on 04.03.2011, before the amendment of Section 354 of the IPC which came in force w.e.f. 03.02.2013. As such, there is no prescription of the minimum imprisonment at the relevant point of time. This Court has observed that according to PW-1, the petitioner was only 19 years of age at the time of commission of the offence. As such, there is no prescription of the minimum imprisonment at the relevant point of time. This Court has observed that according to PW-1, the petitioner was only 19 years of age at the time of commission of the offence. This is a relevant factor to be considered at the time of imposing sentence. Under the unamended Section 354 of the IPC, the sentence as can be awarded be imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. 11. This Court having regard to all the mitigating and aggravating circumstances as pointed out, is of the view that the sentence is required to be further altered and it has to be converted into fine. Thus, the petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) within a period of 6(six) weeks from today, else he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) months for such default in the payment of fine. If the fine money is deposited to the trial court, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Belonia, South Tripura within the timeframe as stated, PW-2 and PW-5 shall be entitled to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) each as compensation and this amount shall be received for their behalf by their mothers i.e. PW-1 and PW-6. The trial court shall deal with the fine money, if deposited, in the manner as indicated above. In the result, this petition stands partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Send down the LCRs forthwith.