JUDGMENT : The appellant herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Sections 341, 324 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code in S.C. No. 47 of 2009 of the Court of Session, Kollam. 2. The prosecution case is that at about 10.30 a.m. on 15.5.2007, on the public road at Mavintheri near Kadasseri, the accused assaulted the victim, outraged her modesty, and even made an attempt to rape her while she was on her way home from her sister's house. The allegation is that while she was walking along the road, the accused came from behind on a motor cycle, and made such atrocious assault. On the complaint given by the victim, the Police initially registered the crime under Sections 341, 324 and 354 of IPC. During investigation, the victim gave a statement revealing some attempt for rape also on the part of the accused. In such a circumstance, the Police deleted Section 354 of IPC, and added Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC, and investigation proceeded as a case of attempted rape. After investigation, the Police submitted final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur under Sections 341, 324 and 376 read with Section 511 of IPC. 3. After complying with the procedure prescribed under the law, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session from where it was made over to the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Kollam, for trial and disposal. 4. The accused appeared before the trial court, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Sections 341, 324 and 376 read with Section 511 of IPC. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses, including the victim of offence, and proved Exts. P1 to P11 documents. The MO1 and MO2 properties were also identified during trial. 5. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and projected a defence that the case was falsely foisted against him due to some personal enmity in connection with a dispute between him and the father of the complainant. The accused did not adduce any oral evidence in defence. However, Exts. D1 and D2 were marked on his side. 6. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found that this is only a case of outrage of modesty, and not a case of attempted rape. The accused did not adduce any oral evidence in defence. However, Exts. D1 and D2 were marked on his side. 6. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found that this is only a case of outrage of modesty, and not a case of attempted rape. Accordingly, the accused was found not guilty under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC. However, he was found guilty under Sections 341, 324 and 354 of IPC. Though the charge was framed as a case of attempted rape, the trial court, on trial, found a lesser offence of outrage of modesty under Section 354 of IPC. It was accordingly the conviction was made. On conviction, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days under Section 341 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year, and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 324 of IPC, and another period of rigorous imprisonment for one year, and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 354 of IPC, by judgment dated 31.12.2011. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, the accused has come up in appeal. 7. When this appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence given by the prosecutrix in this case is not believable at all in view of the different versions given by her during investigation at different stages, and that she has no consistent case at all before the court. 8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though a case of attempted rape is not revealed by evidence, there is clear evidence to prove the offence under Section 354 of IPC. As regards the offence under Sections 341 and 324 of IPC, nothing material is there. An evaluation of evidence shows that the alleged assault punishable under Section 324 of IPC in fact happened as part of the outrageous act committed by the accused. A clear case under Section 341 of IPC is also not made out. What is revealed by the evidence, and what is proved by such evidence is only a case of outrage of modesty, which comes only under Section 354 of IPC. 9. Of the 7 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW1 is the victim of offence, and PW2 is the independent witness. This witness turned hostile to the prosecution. What is revealed by the evidence, and what is proved by such evidence is only a case of outrage of modesty, which comes only under Section 354 of IPC. 9. Of the 7 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW1 is the victim of offence, and PW2 is the independent witness. This witness turned hostile to the prosecution. The victim of offence has given definite evidence fully consistent with her versions in the FI statement, though her versions regarding attempted rape appear to be some sort of embellishment. What is made out in the FI statement is a clear case of outrage of modesty. Though the victim developed a case of attempted rape later, she could not substantiate it by satisfactory evidence. Just because, she failed in proving such an offence, the other part of the evidence proving the outrageous assault made by the accused, cannot be brushed aside or rejected by the court. 10. PW6 is the doctor who examined the victim at the hospital, and issued the Ext.P4 certificate. The medical evidence shows that the victim had a bite mark on her cheek, and another inflamed contusion over the inner part of her lower lip. The definite case of the complainant is that she was caught by force by the accused on her way, and he bit on her cheek, and also on her lips in the outrageous attempt made by him to subject her to rape. Of course, it is true that evidence is not satisfactory to prove an attempted rape. But the outrageous assault made by the accused on the body of the victim is well proved by her evidence. PW3 is an attester to the Ext.P2 scene mahazar. PW4 is the doctor who examined the accused, and issued the potency certificate. This part of the evidence does not assume importance. So also, evidence regarding the production of properties, or identification of properties does not assume importance, because the allegation under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC is found against. The short point for consideration is whether there is evidence to prove the alleged outrageous assault made by the accused on PW1. On this point, her evidence is quite clear and convincing. I do not find the necessity of any independent corroboration in the particular circumstances. The accused does not have any acceptable defence. The short point for consideration is whether there is evidence to prove the alleged outrageous assault made by the accused on PW1. On this point, her evidence is quite clear and convincing. I do not find the necessity of any independent corroboration in the particular circumstances. The accused does not have any acceptable defence. He does not explain how exactly the girl sustained a bite mark on her cheek, or an injury over the inner part of the lower lips. The doctor's evidence is that it was a clear bite mark on the cheek. The girl affirms that the bite mark was caused by the accused, or she was bitten by the accused in his attempt to outrage her modesty. 11. Evidence shows that the alleged physical assault made by the accused on the body of the victim was, in fact, part of the outrage of modesty committed by him. So, there cannot be a conviction independently under Section 324 of IPC. The evidence does not show definitely that the girl was obstructed on her way. It appears that it was a sudden outrage. Without necessary elements to constitute the offence of wrongful restrain, a conviction is not possible under Section 341 of IPC. Thus, I find that the appellant cannot be found guilty under Sections 341 and 324 of IPC, but the conviction under Section 354 of IPC will have to be confirmed. 12. The sentence imposed by the court below is rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 354 of IPC, and the amount of fine imposed is Rs. 25,000/-. The defence appears to be that there had been some love affair between the victim and the accused, but due to some objections from the family, they could not get married. It is doubtful whether this defence can be accepted because, a suggestion was put in the cross examination of the victim, that she had an affair with one Manoj. Anyway, it appears that there was something wrong between them. It is doubtful why the accused followed her on her way home back, or how exactly he came to know of her presence there. This means that there was some sort of communication between them. 13. Anyway, in the above circumstances, I feel it appropriate to reduce the sentence reasonably. The minimum sentence in view of Section 354 (4) Cr.P.C. Will be the adequate sentence in this case. This means that there was some sort of communication between them. 13. Anyway, in the above circumstances, I feel it appropriate to reduce the sentence reasonably. The minimum sentence in view of Section 354 (4) Cr.P.C. Will be the adequate sentence in this case. But I am not inclined to reduce the amount of fine. In the result this appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 341 and 324 of IPC, and accordingly, he is acquitted of those offences in appeal under Section 386(b)(i) Cr.P.C. However, the conviction under Section 354 of IPC is confirmed. The sentence imposed by the court below under Section 354 of IPC will stand reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months. The fine sentence imposed by the court below, with the default sentence thereon, is maintained.