JUDGMENT : Heard, learned counsels for the appellant, Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay assisted by Mr. A. K. Das and Mr. Asif Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 2. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28.06.2004 and order of sentence dated 30.06.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IX, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No. 159 of 2003, whereby, the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple Imprisonment for one months. The period already undergone during trial shall be set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. By the same impugned judgment, the appellant has been acquitted of the charge under sections 376/511 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, is based upon, written report of Jaymanty Baduk (P.W.1) submitted before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Parsudih Police Station, on 27.01.2003, wherein the informant has stated, that at about 2.30 P.M.-3.00 P.M. she was coming down by the stairs of her house after spreading cloths on the roof, then she saw Krishna Bari was hiding himself near the ladder and he lifted her in his lap and took her to a nearby wooden tal. It is further alleged that informant had tried to rape her but she picked up a wood piece, started giving blow to accused, who ran away from the house of the informant. It is further alleged that her father-in-law, Gotani (sister-in-law) and maternal uncle came there, after hearing brawl of the informant and saw appellant/accused fleeing away. 4. On the basis of written report of the informant, Police instituted First Information Report bearing Parsudih P.S. Case No. 15 of 2003, dated 27.01.2003, under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 27 of 2003, dated 12.03.2003, under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/appellant. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 24.03.2003 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 07.05.2003. 7. 5. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 27 of 2003, dated 12.03.2003, under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/appellant. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 24.03.2003 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 07.05.2003. 7. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant on 08.09.2003, under Sections 376/511 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the appellant/accused has pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial. 8. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether six witnesses and also exhibited documentary evidence. Jaymanty Baduk (victim of the case) has been examined as P.W.1, Jagdish Kumar Baduk (husband of the victim) has been examined as P.W.2, Jeevach Jha (Investigating officer) has been examined as P.W.3, Ghanshyam Baduk (brother-in-law of the informant) has been examined as P.W.4, Parbhash Khandai, a hearsay witness, has been examined as P.W.5 and Bhola Nath Baduk (father-in-law of the victim) has been examined as P.W.6. Fardbeyan has been proved and marked as exhibit-1, signature on the First Information Report has been proved and marked as exhibit-2 and memo of arrest has been proved and marked as exhibit-3. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of appellant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 22.05.2004, where the appellant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case as previously the appellant and husband of Jaymanty Baduk (informant) were working as Khalashi and Driver in the truck at S.K. Timber. The Driver Jagdish Kumar Baduk, husband of the informant used to steal fuel. One day seven to eight month prior to alleged date of incident, Jagdish abused him and therefore, appellant made complaint to owner about theft of fuel by him. It is because of this appellant has been implicated in this case. Jagdish Baduk (husband of the informant) was pressurising the appellant to say before the owner, that earlier he has wrongly said to him. The appellant claimed himself to be innocent. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of material available on record, learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The appellant claimed himself to be innocent. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of material available on record, learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant before this Hon’ble Court, assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 11. Heard, learned counsels for the appellant, Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay assisted by Mr. A.K. Das. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that the conviction of the appellant is solely based on the testimony of P.W.1 Jaymanty Baduk, who is the victim of this case and her deposition is not in consonance with her written report which is basis of the First Information Report. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that except P.W.1 Jaymanty Baduk, victim of the case, all other prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W.2 Jagdish Kumar Baduk, P.W.4 Ghanshyam Baduk, P.W.5 Parbhash Khandai and P.W.6 Bhola Nath Baduk are hearsay witnesses. Even Bhola Nath Baduk has not supported the case of prosecution rather as per the evidence of P.W.6. Bhola Nath Baduk, it is stated that, his daughter-in-law came and disclosed that, while she was coming down the stair, she was lifted by the accused, who tried to commit rape but said accused fled away. In the First Informant Report, informant Jaymanty Baduk has categorically stated that, when accused was trying to commit rape, she got a piece of wood and assaulted him, thereupon accused/appellant fled away. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that appellant was caught by the police on 31.01.2003 i.e. three days after the occurrence but the investigating officer has not referred appellant/accused before the doctor for medical examination, to ascertain whether appellant has sustained any injury on his person as alleged by the informant in her First Information Report. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that appellant was caught by the police on 31.01.2003 i.e. three days after the occurrence but the investigating officer has not referred appellant/accused before the doctor for medical examination, to ascertain whether appellant has sustained any injury on his person as alleged by the informant in her First Information Report. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant has categorically stated the reason for being falsely implicated in the present case as such, the appellant may be acquitted of charge and conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code by giving benefit of doubt. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Asif Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is well founded, based on the material available on record and learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, and has rightly acquitted the appellant of the charge under Sections 366 and 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code, as basic ingredient to constitute an offence under Sections 366 and 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code was lacking/missing in this case. Learned counsel for the State has drawn attention of this Court towards the deposition of P.W.1, where she has stated that she disclosed about the occurrence to her father-in-law, who was outside the house. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that act of removing sari of a woman as stated by P.W.1, victim of the case, during her examination-in-chief, coupled with an intention to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty is sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. Heard, learned counsels for the appellant, Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay assisted by Mr. A.K. Das and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Asif Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the records, i.e. First Informant Report, framing of the charge, evidence of six prosecution witnesses, three exhibits of the prosecution side and the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. as well as impugned judgment. This Court has scrutinized the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Asif Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the records, i.e. First Informant Report, framing of the charge, evidence of six prosecution witnesses, three exhibits of the prosecution side and the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. as well as impugned judgment. This Court has scrutinized the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Except P.W.1 Jaymanty Baduk, all other prosecution witnesses such as P.W.2 Jagdish Kumar Baduk, P.W.4 Ghanshyam Baduk, P.W. 5 Parbhash Khandai and P.W.6 Bhola Nath Baduk are hearsay witnesses and P.W.3 (Jeevach Jha) is the investigating officer of the case. None of the witnesses, except P.W.1, has seen or witnessed the appellant in the house of the informant while entering or feeling away. This Court has also scrutinized the evidence of the informant. The informant has alleged in the First Information Report that, she has assaulted the appellant by means of a piece of wood but prosecution has not proved this fact by examining the appellant before a medical officer to substantiate the corresponding injury of assault on the person of the appellant. This Court is of the opinion that ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, as submitted by the learned State counsel is required to be proved but in the present case, from perusal of the evidence, this Court is of the view that a false case has been instituted against the appellant as the investigating officer has not established the place of occurrence, nor shown any mark of quarrel or protest at the wooden tal. Apart from that, if a lady is thrashed over wooden tal, then fine particles of wood (dust) must be there on the cloth of the lady (victim). In addition to that, while the appellant was feeling away from the wooden tal area having wooden dust, the same ought to have been spread over some distance in the way, while fleeing away. The same must be found on the cloth of the appellant. But prosecution has failed to prove all these facts to establish prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubt against appellant. This Court has also perused the First Information Report, where the informant has alleged that on brawl raised by her, her father-in-law, Sister-in-law and maternal uncle came their and thereafter accused fled away. But prosecution has failed to prove all these facts to establish prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubt against appellant. This Court has also perused the First Information Report, where the informant has alleged that on brawl raised by her, her father-in-law, Sister-in-law and maternal uncle came their and thereafter accused fled away. This fact has been disclosed by the informant during her deposition in the Court which is contradictory to her statement made in the written report. Apart from this sister-in-law and maternal uncle have not been examined by the prosecution and father-in-law, Bhola Nath Baduk P.W.6 has not corroborated the prosecution case. Furthermore, this Court is of the opinion that nobody has seen the appellant in the house of the informant, although in the house of the informant other relatives were also residing as stated by the informant in her deposition. Under the aforesaid background, this Court is of the view that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, because of animosity prevailing between the appellant and husband of the informant. No person has seen the appellant fleeing away nor the place of occurrence has been proved and established by the investigating officer nor the investigating officer has mentioned about any mark of violence found at the place of occurrence. Considering the discussion, as made above, particularly the evidence of sole witness i.e. informant, and on comparison with the written report of the informant, confidence is not being generated by this court with regard to reliability and authenticity of the statement of the informant Under the aforesaid background, as discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, can not sustain in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 28.06.2004 and order of sentence dated 30.06.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IX, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No. 159 of 2003, arising out of Persudih P.S. Case no. 15 of 2003 corresponding to G. R. no. 158 of 2003, is hereby set aside. 14. In the result, the instant criminal appeal stands allowed. 15. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 16. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.