JUDGMENT : The appellant herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Sections 450, 354 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code in S.C No.371/2007 of the Court of Session, Thalassery. The incident of house trespass, molestation and assault alleged in this case happened at about 9.30 am., on 7.4.2006 at the residence of the victim, who was aged only 12 years at that time. The appellant is a person of the locality, known well to the victim and her parents. 2. The prosecution case is that at about 9.30 am., on 7.4.2006 the appellant came at the house of the victim when she was alone there, under some pretext he entered the house, and when the victim switched off the television for going outside, the appellant caught her, dragged her to the kitchen space, pressed her mouth, made an attempt to commit rape on her, and when she resisted effectively, the appellant took a dagger from the kitchen and inflicted injuries on the victim severely in an attempt on her life, for the fear that she would reveal the attempts made by him to others. With severe bleeding injuries on the body and head, the victim came out after the accused left the house, and fell at the courtyard of the adjacent house. On hearing her scream and noise of fall, the immediate neighbour Shiny came out and saw the girl lying at her courtyard with profusely bleeding injuries all over her body. Immediately, with the help of her husband and others, Shiny took the girl to the nearest hospital, from where she was referred to the Pariyaram Medical College where she underwent effective treatment including operation. The crime was initially registered under Section 307 IPC on the basis of the first information statement given by the neighbour Shiny, against an unknown person, because the identity and details of the assailant was not available at that time, as the victim fell unconscious due to the injuries, and remained unconscious for about three days. After three days, while undergoing treatment at the Intensive Care Unit, the victim revealed the name and details of the assailant. In such a circumstance, when the police identified the victim, the appellant herein was arraigned as accused and the police accordingly submitted report in court. After three days, while undergoing treatment at the Intensive Care Unit, the victim revealed the name and details of the assailant. In such a circumstance, when the police identified the victim, the appellant herein was arraigned as accused and the police accordingly submitted report in court. On the basis of the revelations made by her at the hospital, the police incorporated Section 450 IPC and also Section 376 r/w 511 IPC, and proceeded for investigation as a case of attempted rape and attempt on life. After investigation, the police submitted final report under Sections 450, 307 and 376 r/w 511 IPC before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannoor. After complying with the procedural formalities the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session, Thalassery. 3. The accused (appellant) appeared before the learned Sessions Judge and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Sections 450, 307 and 376 r/w 511 IPC. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses including the victim and also proved Exts.P1 to P24 documents. The Ext.X1 case sheet was also proved at the instance of the prosecution. The material objects involved in the case were identified during trial as MO1 to MO9, including the weapon used by the accused, the blood stained dress materials of the victim which she had worn at the time of the incident, and also the dress materials of the accused. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and projected a defence of total denial. He did not adduce any evidence in defence. However, Exts.D1 to D3 contradictions in the statements of witnesses were proved during trial. On an appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial judge found the accused guilty under Sections 450, 354 and 307 IPC. Though the prosecution alleged attempted rape, the learned trial judge found only a case of outrage of modesty. On conviction, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 450 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 354 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 307 IPC, by judgment dated 11.1.2011. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused has come up in appeal. 4. 5,000/- under Section 354 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 307 IPC, by judgment dated 11.1.2011. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused has come up in appeal. 4. When this appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the whole prosecution case is suspicious, and that the case stands not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that the identity of the assailant allegedly revealed after three days, is suspicious and unacceptable, and that the conduct of the mother of the victim after the incident also raises some serious suspicion regarding the truth of the prosecution case. At the outset itself, let me make it clear that it is quite immaterial how the mother of the victim behaved after the incident. Admittedly, she is not an eye witness and she came to know of the incident when she was taken by PW1 and others on the way to the hospital. She noticed the injuries sustained by her daughter only when the jeep carrying the victim reached at the hospital. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the prosecution case stands consistently and satisfactorily proved by the evidence of the victim and also the medical evidence given by the three doctors, who had treated the victim at the hospital, at different stages. 6. PW1 is the next door neighbour of the victim, who took the victim to the hospital immediately. PW2 is the victim herself, PW3, PW4 and PW15 are the doctors who treated the patient at the hospital at different stages, PW13 is the victim's mother and PW16 is the Circle Inspector of Police, who investigated the case and submitted final report. Much was argued about the identification of the accused during the investigation process. The defence submitted that PW16 has not satisfactorily explained how he identified or how he happened to arraign the appellant as accused in the crime. It has come out in evidence that the identity of the assailant was revealed by the victim only after three days because she remained unconscious at the ICU for three days. When she regained consciousness she revealed things to the others including the police that she was assaulted and molested by the accused in this case. It has come out in evidence that the identity of the assailant was revealed by the victim only after three days because she remained unconscious at the ICU for three days. When she regained consciousness she revealed things to the others including the police that she was assaulted and molested by the accused in this case. This is the consistent evidence given by the victim during trial. The evidence of the investigating officer is also that he got the required information regarding the assailant when it was revealed by the victim at the hospital after the three days. I find no infirmity or inconsistency or suspicion regarding the identification of the assailant made by the police during investigation. 7. The evidence of PW1 is only that when she came out of the house, on hearing a cry and scream, she saw the victim lying at her courtyard with profusely bleeding injuries on all over her body. The victim was not fully conscious at that time. Immediately, she called her husband and others, and took the victim to the nearest hospital from where she was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Pariyaram. She is not an eye witness and she does not know how the victim sustained injuries. This victim was elaborately cross examined at length by the defence quite unnecessarily. I do not know how the answers brought out from her in cross examination would help the defence in any manner. I find nothing in favour of the defence in the evidence of PW1 who only took the victim to the hospital and gave the first information statement at the hospital. She has explained that when she gave the first information statement, the victim was lying unconscious at the hospital, at the ICU, and the parents of the victim were also not there. That is why she gave the first information statement to the police. I find nothing to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. 8. PW2 is the victim of offence in this case. This girl was aged only 12 years at the time of incident. She has given definite and consistent evidence proving the prosecution case in toto, that when she was alone at her house on 7.4.2006, the accused came there at about 9.30 am., and asked her where her father was. 8. PW2 is the victim of offence in this case. This girl was aged only 12 years at the time of incident. She has given definite and consistent evidence proving the prosecution case in toto, that when she was alone at her house on 7.4.2006, the accused came there at about 9.30 am., and asked her where her father was. When she replied that her father had gone to Iritty, the accused remained there, he entered the house and started watching the television. When the victim switched off the television, and wanted to go out, the accused still remained there, caught her with force, dragged her to the kitchen space where he molested her, and made an attempt to abuse her sexually. When she resisted tooth and nail, the accused took a dagger from the kitchen and inflicted severe injuries on her body with the object of killing her, for the fear that she would reveal the incident to the others. The girl is definite that the accused inflicted serious injuries on her body with a dagger only when he failed in his attempt to ravish her, and also when he feared that she would reveal the incident to her parents and others. Though the prosecution alleged attempted rape, the court below found only a case of outrage of modesty on the basis of the evidence given by the victim. 9. The victim consistently stated in evidence that she was unconscious for about three days at the ICU and when she regained consciousness, she revealed name and details of the assailant to the others including the police. She affirmed during trial that she was molested and assaulted by the accused in this case, who is known to her well as a person of the locality. Though the defence made an attempt to bring out that she made a false complaint against the accused at the instance of her mother, she denied the suggestion stoutly, and stated in definite terms consistently that she was in fact assaulted by the accused in this case at the kitchen of her house when he failed in his attempt to ravish her or to exploit her sexually. The defence could not bring out anything in her cross examination to discredit her evidence. The victim also identified the weapon of offence used by the accused. The defence could not bring out anything in her cross examination to discredit her evidence. The victim also identified the weapon of offence used by the accused. There cannot be any doubt or dispute regarding the actual identity and details of the accused in this case because he is not a stranger to the victim. He is a person of the locality whom the victim knows very well and she is definite that she was molested and assaulted by the accused in this case at her house, on 7.4.2006. 10. PW3 is the doctor, who examined the victim at the Medical College Hospital, Pariyaram at about 12.01 pm on the date of incident itself. The doctor has recorded all the injuries seen on the body of the victim, including so many incised wounds. 22 injuries were noted by the doctor. Ext.P2 is the certificate issued by him, containing all the details of the injuries noted by him. The victim had sustained an incised wound 2.5 cms long over the right side of the forehead, another incised wound 2.5 cms long over the middle of forehead, three other incised wounds on the left side of forehead, another incised wounds 4 cms long behind the left ear, another one 5x3 cms over the left mandibular region with a bleeding vessel, another one 1.5 cms long over right parietal scalp, and another incised wound 8 cms long over the occipital scalp, besides other injuries. The doctor stated that taken as a whole, the injuries were grievous in nature. The doctor also stated that the injuries could be caused with a weapon like MO1 dagger. Only as regards the injury No.22 he stated that it could be caused by the thorns of rose plants. It has come out in evidence that the victim had fallen on the rose plants at the courtyard of PW1. Most of the injuries are incised wounds that could be caused only by a sharp weapon, as stated by the doctor. 11. PW4 is the neuro surgen, who treated the victim at the Medical College Hospital, Pariyaram. His evidence is that the girl had severe head injury, involving fracture of the left tempero parietal bone and also neurocephalus. She had multiple contused incised wounds over the face and body. He also proved Ext.P3 certificate issued by him. 11. PW4 is the neuro surgen, who treated the victim at the Medical College Hospital, Pariyaram. His evidence is that the girl had severe head injury, involving fracture of the left tempero parietal bone and also neurocephalus. She had multiple contused incised wounds over the face and body. He also proved Ext.P3 certificate issued by him. As a neuro surgen he treated only the head injury, and the other injuries were treated by the other experts. In cross examination the doctor stated that the injury No.1 and 2 could be caused in a fall, and that the victim had severe head injury involving fracture of parietal bone and fracture of skull. 12. PW15 is the doctor who proved the Ext.X1 case sheet containing all the details of the injuries and all the details of the treatment given at the Medical College Hospital, Pariyaram. This doctor's evidence is that at the initial stage the patient was drowsy and disoriented and she had multiple injuries all over the body with bleeding. Immediate steps were taken to arrest the bleeding and to correct the shock. Investigation revealed head injury involving fracture. She was taken to the operation theater immediately for detailed examination and surgical procedure. The doctor has given evidence regarding the injuries noted in Ext.X1 case sheet. He stated that all the incised injuries and lacerated wounds noted on the body of the victim could be caused by a sharp edged weapon. Taken as a whole the injuries were grievous in nature and the injuries may lead to death, in case immediate medical care is not given. 13. The defence could not bring out anything in the cross examination of the three doctors who gave consistent evidence regarding the details of the injuries including the seriousness of injuries and also the possible consequence of injuries, if not promptly and properly attended immediately. 14. On an examination of the evidence given by PW16 I find that the case was properly investigated by him. There is nothing to show that there was any flaw or irregularity or illegality in the investigation made by PW16. The victim of offence has given the details of the incident and also the details of the person, who assaulted her. The accused was well identified by her during trial, and her evidence is convincing as to how, during the investigation process, the assailant could be identified by the police. The victim of offence has given the details of the incident and also the details of the person, who assaulted her. The accused was well identified by her during trial, and her evidence is convincing as to how, during the investigation process, the assailant could be identified by the police. There is no reason why PW2 should foist a false case against the accused. She was a small girl aged 12 years at the time of the alleged incident. She identified MO1, as the weapon of offence used by the accused to inflict injuries on her body. She is definite and consistent that she was assaulted and molested by the accused in this case at her house. The evidence given by the other witnesses need not be discussed at length. One is the Village Officer who prepared the scene plan, the other is only the person who took the victim to the hospital in his jeep, and another one is the Panchayat Secretary who proved the ownership certificate relating to the house where the incident happened. It is quite immaterial whether she is the owner or her mother is the owner, or somebody else is the owner. Trespass into the house is well proved by the evidence of the victim, and she has affirmed that the accused caught her with force, dragged her to the kitchen with the object of ravishing her or abusing her sexually, and when she effectively resisted the accused, he inflicted injuries with a dagger taken from the kitchen. This incident is clearly narrated by the victim in evidence, and her evidence is fully satisfactory, convincing and acceptable. A clear case of house trespass, molestation and attempt on life is well proved by the evidence of the victim. So many incised wounds inflicted by the accused on the body of the victim would show that his intention was to kill her, or he in fact made an attempt to kill the girl when he failed in his attempt to ravish her. If any injury is caused on the body of the victim in an attempt on his or her life, the said attempt on life is punishable with imprisonment for life under the second limb of Section 307 IPC. House trespass with such an object will definitely come under Section 450 IPC. 15. If any injury is caused on the body of the victim in an attempt on his or her life, the said attempt on life is punishable with imprisonment for life under the second limb of Section 307 IPC. House trespass with such an object will definitely come under Section 450 IPC. 15. Though the prosecution alleged the offence of attempted rape, what is actually proved by the evidence of the victim is only outrage of modesty. I find that the accused inflicted so many injuries including head injury and fracture on the body of the victim in an attempt on her life for the fear that if she survived, she would reveal the incident to others. The medical evidence also reveals the essentials of the offence under Section 307 IPC. Thus, I find that the a clear case under Section 307 IPC is also well proved by the prosecution. In view of the findings above, the conviction against the appellant is only to be confirmed in appeal. I find no reason or ground for interference in the findings made by the court below, or in the conviction made by the trial court. 16. Now the question of sentence. On a consideration of all the relevant aspects including the age of the victim, I feel it appropriate to modify and reduce the sentence reasonably. I feel that rigorous imprisonment for two years will be the adequate sentence under Section 450 IPC and another terms of rigorous imprisonment for four years will be the adequate sentence under Section 307 IPC. As regards the sentence, under Section 354 IPC, I find no reason for modification or reduction. In the result, this appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction against the appellant under Sections 450, 354 and 307 IPC in S.C No.371/2007 of the court below. However, the sentence imposed by the court below under Sections 450 and 307 IPC will stand modified and reduced in appeal. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 450 IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and the jail sentence imposed under Section 307 IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for four years. The fine sentence imposed by the court below with default sentence thereon is maintained. The accused will get the benefit of set off as already ordered by the trial court.