JUDGMENT : The appellant was accused No.3 before the trial Court in Special Case No.219/2009. She and accused Nos.1 and 2 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 109 R/w 34 of IPC and were sentenced to simple imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- each. 2. While the above appeal filed by the appellant/accused No.3 was pending, this Court by order dated 01.07.2017, in Criminal Appeal No.3614/2011 partly allowed the appeal filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 confirming the conviction and sentence awarded on accused No.1 and acquitting accused No.2 of the said charges. 3. The case of the prosecution as borne on record is that the complainant (PW.3) was working as a daily labourer as an assistant in Morarji Residential School at Nidagunda. She was a widow. At the relevant time, accused No.1 was working as warden of the said residential school and accused No.3 was appointed as a daily wager. Accused No.2 was the Taluka Social Welfare Officer. 4. PW.3 lodged a complaint on 12.09.2009, alleging that accused No.1 was harassing her and insisting her to have sexual relationship with accused No.2. On 05.09.2009 at about 1:30 p.m., when she was working in the kitchen, accused No.1 pulled her hand and asked her to proceed to the room of accused No.2 saying that accused No.2 had affection towards her and he would regularize her employment. The further case of the prosecution is that when PW.3 resisted, accused No.3 induced and instigated her to carry on sexual activity with accused No.2 and when her coworkers came to her rescue, accused Nos.1 and 3 abused her calling out her caste. 5. Based on this complaint, a case was registered against accused Nos.1 to 3 and after investigation, charge sheet was laid against them under Sections 354, 109 R/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (i), (xi) (xii) of SC/ST (PA) Act. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Complainant was examined as PW.3. Her coworkers who were cited as eyewitnesses were examined as PWs.6 to 9. The prosecution relied on 10 documents, marked as Exs.P.1 to P.10. The portion of the statement of PW.8 was marked as Ex.D.1 on behalf of the accused. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances. Complainant was examined as PW.3. Her coworkers who were cited as eyewitnesses were examined as PWs.6 to 9. The prosecution relied on 10 documents, marked as Exs.P.1 to P.10. The portion of the statement of PW.8 was marked as Ex.D.1 on behalf of the accused. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances. Considering the above materials, by judgment dated 18.06.2011, the trial Court found all the accused persons guilty of the above offences and convicted all the above persons for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 109 R/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, sentenced them as stated above. The charges under the provisions of SC/ST (PA) act were held not proved. As already stated above, the appeal filed by accused Nos.1 and 2, has been disposed of by this Court by order dated 01.07.2017, in Criminal Appeal No.3614/2011, whereby the sentence awarded on accused No.1 is confirmed and accused No.2 is acquitted of the charges under Section 354 R/w 34 of IPC. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has committed serious error in convicting the appellant for the alleged offences under Sections 354 and 109 R/w 34 of IPC. The allegations made against the appellant did not attract the above offences. The trial Court has failed to take into consideration the material contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant and PWs.6 to 9. It has failed to note that the evidence given by PW.3 before the Court is contrary to the version narrated by her in her complaint Ex.P.3 leading to doubt her motive. The inordinate delay in lodging the complaint has escaped notice of the Court. Further, she would submit that the case of the appellant stands at par with accused No.2 who is acquitted by this Court. The allegations attracting Section 354 are directed only against accused No.1. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the appellant herein outraged the modesty and abetted the commission of the said offence. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the above offence under Section 354 IPC is patently illegal and perverse. Further, she contends that the appellant had no intention whatsoever to commit the above offences. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the appellant herein outraged the modesty and abetted the commission of the said offence. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the above offence under Section 354 IPC is patently illegal and perverse. Further, she contends that the appellant had no intention whatsoever to commit the above offences. The trial Court had failed to consider all these aspects of the case which has resulted in blatant miscarriage of justice and hence she seeks to set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the appellant of the charges leveled against her. 8. Defending the impugned conviction, the learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the case of the prosecution stands at par with accused No.1 whose conviction has been confirmed by this Court. PW.3 as well as the other witnesses examined by the prosecution have consistently stated that accused No.1 pulled the hands of the complainant and tried to outrage her modesty and used force against the complainant asking her to have sexual relationship with accused No.2. The appellant herein induced accused No.1 to commit the above offences. The evidence let in by prosecution clearly makes out the ingredients of the offences under Sections 354 and 109 R/w 34 of IPC and hence, there is no reason to interfere with the well considered judgment rendered by the trial Court and accordingly pleads for the dismissal of the appeal. 9. I have considered the submissions and have carefully examined the materials on record with reference to the evidence of the complainant PW.3 and the evidence of the eyewitnesses cited by the prosecution, namely, PWs.6 to 9. On reconsideration their evidence, I am unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the testimony of these witnesses suffer from material contradictions and inconsistencies as sought to be made out by the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. In appreciating the above contention, it is relevant to note that in her evidence, PW.3 the complainant has unequivocally asserted that on the date of the incident at about 1:30 p.m., when she was working in the kitchen along with Devavva (PW.6), Narasamma (PW.7), Sakkamma (PW.8) and Sridevi (PW.9), accused No.3 came to the kitchen and told PW.3 that ‘Sir’ is calling her and that he has fallen in love with her. Her further evidence is that accused Nos.1 pulled her hands and when she screamed, her coworkers rushed there and at that time, accused Nos.1 and 3 abused her calling out her caste. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the above statements made before the Court by PW.3 are inconsistent to the contents of the complaint Ex.P.3, wherein PW.3 has stated that at about 1-30 p.m., accused No.1 came to the kitchen and asked her to proceed to the room of accused No.2, as accused No.2 developed affection towards her and that he would regularize her employment. No doubt, it is true that PW.3 in her complaint she has stated so, but this versions cannot be said to be inconsistent and contrary to the version narrated by her in her evidence before the Court. It is trite law that evidence has to be appreciated as a whole and not in isolation. The evidence of a witness has to be evaluated in the background of the deponent and the circumstances under which she had lodged complaint and deposed before the Court. In the instant case, undeniably, PW.3 was a daily labourer. She was an assistant working in the kitchen in Morarji Residential School. In her complainant as well as in her evidence before the Court, she has specifically stated about the presence of the accused Nos.1 and 3 and the overt acts committed by each of them. She has stated that accused No.1 pulled her hand and accused Nos.1 and 3 asked her to have sexual relationship with accused No.2. This fact has been narrated by her in the complaint as well in her evidence before the Court. Likewise, the inducement given by accused No.3 is also stated in the complaint as well in her evidence. In the complaint she has specifically alleged that accused No.3 who was working as night watchman induced and forced her to carry on the sexual acts with accused No.2. Even in the course of the cross-examination, she has maintained this version. She being an illiterate lady might not have reproduced the very same expression and the sequence as stated in the complaint, but there is absolutely no variation whatsoever in the core allegations made by her against accused No.1 and accused No.3. Her evidence clearly indicates that accused No.2 was not present at the spot during the occurrence. She being an illiterate lady might not have reproduced the very same expression and the sequence as stated in the complaint, but there is absolutely no variation whatsoever in the core allegations made by her against accused No.1 and accused No.3. Her evidence clearly indicates that accused No.2 was not present at the spot during the occurrence. Therefore, I do not find any contradiction or inconsistency in the statement made by PW.3 before the Court and the allegations made by her in the complaint with regard to the specific acts committed by accused Nos.1 and 3. As a result, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the testimony of PW.3 is inconsistent with the complaint cannot be accepted. 12. Likewise, the contention of the appellant that the version of PW.3 is inconsistent to the statement of PW.6, PW.7 and PW.9 also cannot be accepted. I have examined the evidence of PW.6, PW.7 and PW.9. Their evidence is relevant only to the extent that these witnesses rushed to the spot on hearing the scream of PW.3. They have consistently stated that on hearing the scream of PW.3, they rushed to the spot and at that time, they found accused No.1 pulling the hands of PW.3 and accused Nos.1 and 3 abusing PW.3 calling out her caste. Therefore, even the evidence of PWs.6 to 9 in my view lends full corroboration to the testimony of PW.3 with regard to the acts committed by accused Nos.1 and 3. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses suffer from irreconcilable inconsistencies and contradictions cannot be accepted. 13. By the above evidence, the prosecution has cogently established that on the date of incident, accused No.1 pulled the hands of PW.3 and induced her to indulge in sexual acts with accused No.2. Further, the prosecution has established that accused No.3 also coerced PW.3 to carry on sexual activities with accused No.2. 14. Having come to the above conclusion, the crucial question that remains to be considered is whether the above evidence is sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused No.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 109 R/w Section 34 of IPC? In other words, whether the conviction of accused No.3 for the above offences could be sustained? 15. Having come to the above conclusion, the crucial question that remains to be considered is whether the above evidence is sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused No.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 109 R/w Section 34 of IPC? In other words, whether the conviction of accused No.3 for the above offences could be sustained? 15. The records indicate that accused No.1 was charged for the offence punishable under Section 354 R/w 34 of IPC. Accused No.3 was charged under Section 109 R/w Section 34 of IPC. The charge under the provisions of SC/ST (PA) Act were framed against all three accused. The trial Court however, has acquitted the accused of the charges under Section 3 (1) (x), (xi) and (xii) of SC/ST (PA) Act and has convicted all the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 109 R/w Section 34 of IPC. 16. As already stated above, this Court has acquitted accused No.2 of all the above charges; as a result, only the conviction of accused Nos.1 and 3 remains for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 109 R/w Section 34 of IPC. But as already observed, there was no charge against accused No.3 for the offence under Section 354 of IPC. The charge was framed against the present appellant/accused No.3 only for the offence punishable under Section 109 R/w Section 34 of IPC. The substance of the accusation against the appellant was that she induced and instigated accused No.1 to commit offence under Section 354 of IPC, thereby abetted the commission of the offence. But if the evidence of PWs.3 and 6 to 9 is analyzed, it is relevant to note that none of these witnesses have stated that the appellant namely, accused No.3 instigated accused No.1 in outraging the modesty of PW.3. On the other hand, the specific evidence of PW.3 is that accused No.1 pulled her hands and asked to proceed to room of accused No.2 to indulge in sexual activities. No allegations are found either in the complaint or in the evidence of PW.3, that accused No.3 either instigated or aided accused No.1 in committing this offence. 17. On the other hand, the specific evidence of PW.3 is that accused No.1 pulled her hands and asked to proceed to room of accused No.2 to indulge in sexual activities. No allegations are found either in the complaint or in the evidence of PW.3, that accused No.3 either instigated or aided accused No.1 in committing this offence. 17. The evidence of PW.3 is that when she was working in the kitchen along with PWs.6 to 9, accused No.3 came there and told PW.3 that “Sir is calling her and he is in love with her.” This statement refers to accused No.2 and not to accused No.1. Nowhere in her evidence before the Court, PW.3 has stated that accused No.3 instigated or aided accused No.1 in outraging her modesty. Likewise, PW.6, PW.7 and PW.9 have merely stated that on hearing the screams of shout of PW.3, they rushed to the spot and found accused Nos.1 and 3 abusing PW.3 calling out her caste. These witnesses also have not stated anywhere that accused No.3 either instigated or aided accused No.1 in outraging her modesty. Of course, there is no requirement under law that in order to render an accused guilty under Section 109 of IPC, the offence abetted should have been committed. Nonetheless, in order to make out the offence under Section 109 of IPC, the prosecution is essentially require to prove that the accused either instigated to commit the offence or indulged in conspiracy to commit the offence or intentionally aided to commit the offence under the Act. Such evidence is conspicuously lacking in the instant case. 18. The evidence of PW.3, 6, 7 and 9 even if accepted as true would at the most go to show that accused No.3 induced PW.3 to have sexual relationship with accused No.2. But there is absolutely no material whatsoever to show that accused No.2 at any time intended to have sexual intercourse with PW.3 or that he had entered into any conspiracy with accused No.3 or had sought her assistance to have sexual relationship with PW.3. Therefore, analyzing the entire evidence on record, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients of the Section 109 of IPC so as to render the appellant/accused No.3 guilty of the said offence. 19. The trial Court has not adverted its mind to the charges framed against the appellant/accused No.3. Therefore, analyzing the entire evidence on record, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients of the Section 109 of IPC so as to render the appellant/accused No.3 guilty of the said offence. 19. The trial Court has not adverted its mind to the charges framed against the appellant/accused No.3. The trial Court has failed to evaluate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in proper perspective. The trial Court has recorded the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 354 and 109 R/w 34 of IPC, without there being any charge for said offences against the appellant. The evidence let in by the prosecution does not establish any of the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 109 of IPC. The finding recorded by the trial Court is therefore, perverse and cannot be sustained. The said finding is contrary to the evidence let in by the prosecution and hence, the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 354 and 109 R/w Section 34 of IPC cannot be sustained. Consequently, the appeal deserved to be allowed. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment insofar as convicting the appellant/accused No.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 109 of IPC is hereby set aside. The appellant/accused No.3 is acquitted of the said charges. The bail bond executed by the appellant/accused No.3 is cancelled. Her sureties are discharged.