JUDGMENT AND ORDER : The judgment and order dated 05.06.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar in Sessions Case No. 63(S-C) of 2006 convicting the accused appellant under section 448/354 of the IPC and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default, to imprisonment for 6 (six) months under section 448 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred), in default, to imprisonment for 1 (one) month is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. 2. Heard Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. The accusation against the accused appellant is that on 12.06.2005 at about 1 P.M. he came to the house of the victim girl and taking advantage of the absence of the other family members sexually molested her. The matter was sought to be resolved in a village meeting but due to absence of the accused the meeting could not be held and consequently there was delay in filing the FIR. In the First Information Report filed by the father of the girl, the date, time and manner of commission of the crime has been clearly spelt out and there is nothing to suspect embellishment or afterthought. 4. During investigation police got the statement of the girl recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate First Class, Sivasagar and in her statement she had stated that the accused had touched her breasts and the whole body and tried to remove her underwear by taking her to a bed. In her evidence in court although she has given the version that the accused committed rape on her but that was rejected by the trial court as being exaggerated as no such statement was made by her in her statement recorded under section 164 or under section 161. However, the learned Sessions Judge was convinced that the accused appellant touched her breasts and molested her. On perusal of her evidence I do not find any reason to disbelieve her testimony regarding molestation and although no case under sections 376/511 IPC has been established, it is proved beyond doubt that she was molested by the accused which brings the offence under the purview of section 354 of the IPC. On perusal of her evidence I do not find any reason to disbelieve her testimony regarding molestation and although no case under sections 376/511 IPC has been established, it is proved beyond doubt that she was molested by the accused which brings the offence under the purview of section 354 of the IPC. Her evidence to some extent is corroborated by the post occurrence witnesses, P.W. 2, Shyamal Paul, P.W. 6, Smti Sabitri Rani Dey, P.W. 8, Smti. Baby Paul and P.W. 9, Badal Dey who saw the accused going out from the house after committing the crime. 5. P.W. 4, Shri Tapan Bhajani is the scribe of the FIR and although he had no personal knowledge, he scribed the FIR on the basis of the version given to him by P.W. 1 Babul. P.W. 7 Dr. Sadhan Bora is the doctor who examined the girl in the Sivasagar Civil Hospital but he admitted that there was no sign of injury on her person or her sexual organ. According to him, the girl was aged about 16 to 18 years and there was no sign of any sexual intercourse. The medical report Ext. 3 has been duly proved. 6. The defence could not elicit anything of importance from the prosecution witnesses to reject their testimony. They had given consistent and uniform version and I do not find any reason whatsoever to disbelieve the prosecution case. 7. Consequently, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar and the same stands affirmed. 8. The appeal is dismissed. 9. Return the LCR.