JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant convicted by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar in S.C. No.78/2006 dated 19.10.2011 is in appeal seeking the remedial intervention by this Court. 2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri.M.B.Gundawade for the appellant – accused and Sri.V.M.Banakar, learned Additional S.P.P. for the respondent – State. 3. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that the appellant – accused is the employee in BSNL as Telecom Operating Assistant. During the year 1987-88 complainant was engaged as a house maid as well as an agricultural coolie in the house of the accused in Nagare Village, Joida Taluk. Complainant used to do house hold work, agriculture work and daily work. Accused had agreed to pay Rs.1,000/-per month to the complainant. As the complainant is illiterate, he promised that her wages will be deposited in the Bank and he has also assured that he would render financial assistance at the time of marriage of her daughter – the victim. It is further alleged that the accused used to visit the village where the complainant was working under the guise of supervising and after some time, he started assaulting the complainant. The accused was transferred to Dandeli and thereafter, he started harassing her physically and he used to detain the complainant by locking in the room. She tolerated the same due to the fear of discontinuation of education of her daughter and has also not disclosed the said fact to anybody. 4. It is the further case of the prosecution that the daughter of the complainant attained puberty. The attention of the accused turned towards her daughter and he had an eye on her and started ill-treating and harassing the complainant and her daughter both physically and mentally. It is her further contention that the accused by taking the advantage used to take the benefit of loneliness and had forcible sexual intercourse with her several times. During the year 2000, her daughter who was studying in 9th standard, discontinued her education and the accused made her to work in the STD booth situated near BSNL Office, Joida. Accused taking advantage of loneliness of his daughter in the STD booth, misbehaved by hugging and kissing her and insisted her to remain with him as wife till she gets married. Accused taking advantage of loneliness of his daughter in the STD booth, misbehaved by hugging and kissing her and insisted her to remain with him as wife till she gets married. The victim did not disclose the same because of the dignity and subsequently the same was disclosed to the complainant. After coming to know the said fact, on 25.01.2002 at about 11 a.m. complainant along with her daughter left the house of the accused and came to Joida and stayed in the house of one Sumangala Bhat, who is said to be her relatives. 5. It is the further case of the prosecution that the complainant’s daughter came to Karwar and met the relative Yamuna Gaonkar and informed about the incident. Then she took her to the Office of Deputy Commissioner to disclose the harassment meted out by the accused and a written representation was given. The Reception Centre of the Deputy Commissioner referred them to the Police and they went to the Police Station at Karwar and lodged the complaint. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No.0/2002, subsequently the same was transferred to Joida and there it has been numbered as Crime No.3/2002. Thereafter, after investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. 6. The learned Sessions Judge after committal, secured the presence of the accused and framed the charge. Prosecution in order to prove the case got examined 13 witnesses, marked 12 documents and one material object. During the course of cross-examination, accused got marked 9 documents. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded by putting incriminating material. He denied the same and he has not led any oral and documentary evidence. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the accused was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506, 342 and 376 of IPC. But however, he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant – accused is before this Court. 7. Prosecution in order to prove its case, got examined 13 witnesses. P.W.1 is panch witness to Exs.P-1 and P-2, the spot mahazar and seizure mahazar. P.W.2 is also a mahazar witness to Ex.P-3. These two witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been treated as hostile. 7. Prosecution in order to prove its case, got examined 13 witnesses. P.W.1 is panch witness to Exs.P-1 and P-2, the spot mahazar and seizure mahazar. P.W.2 is also a mahazar witness to Ex.P-3. These two witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been treated as hostile. P.W.3 is the Shirestedar, who has issued the pahani of Sy. No.46 as per Ex.P-4. P.W.4 is the owner of the hotel, where he used to provide the food. He has deposed that by the side of his shop, BSNL Office is there and accused used to work in the said house and there was a STD booth. He does not know who was running the said STD booth. He has further deposed that he knows the victim and he has not seen her sitting in the STD booth and doing the business. But she used to come to his shop for taking the drinking water and sambar and she has not discussed anything about the act said to have been committed by the accused. He has been treated as hostile. P.W.5 is the coolie, who used to work in the house of the accused. She has also not supported the case of the prosecution. 8. P.W.6 is the Doctor, who has examined the complainant and he did not notice any external injuries and he has collected the vaginal smear and smear was negative for sperms and he has issued the certificate as per Ex.P-7. P.W.7 is the Assistant Executive Engineer, who has prepared the sketch of the scene of the offence, as per Ex.P-8. P.W.8 is the CPI, who received the complaint and sent the FIR to the Court and has issued the FIR as per Ex.P-10 and thereafter, on the point of jurisdiction, he transferred the complaint to Joida Police Station. 9. P.W.9 is the ASI, who has received the copies of the complaint and FIR from Karwar in Crime No.0/2002 and thereafter, reregistered in Crime No.3/2002, sent the FIR to the Court as per Ex.P-11. P.W.10 is the complainant and the mother of the victim. She has reiterated the contents of the complaint. During the course of cross-examination of this witness, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness. P.W.11 is the victim girl. P.W.10 is the complainant and the mother of the victim. She has reiterated the contents of the complaint. During the course of cross-examination of this witness, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness. P.W.11 is the victim girl. In her evidence, she has deposed that she was minor and the accused had kept her in his house and he used to send her to the School and when he was transferred to Dandeli, she was also taken to Dandeli and got her admitted to the School and after sometime, she was made to work in the STD booth. She has further deposed that when she was studying in 8th standard, the accused had misbehaved with her and used to behave indecently. She has further deposed that when she was working in STD booth, on 14.12.2001 at about 01:15 p.m., accused had came near her and had fell on her forcefully and tried to kiss her and he also taken her to another room in the STD booth and has tried to sexually assault her and at that time, nobody was there and she resisted and she did not make hue and cry because of prestige and by escaping from the hands of accused, she came out and at that time, some customers came to the booth and the accused left there itself. Thereafter, she became depressed. At that time, P.W.4 Smt.Vijaya by seeing her, asked as to why she is dull and she started weeping and informed the indecent act of the accused and she did not inform the same to her mother as she felt that it is not necessary and how she has to inform the incident. She has further deposed that her mother subsequently reposed sexual assault committed on her, after she has grown up. During the course of cross-examination, she has admitted the fact that where she was working in the STD booth, nearby there is a BSNL Office and in the BSNL office, Superior Officers were also there and she has not informed the same to those Officers. Except that nothing has been brought on record. 10. P.W.12 is the witness to whom the victim has contacted and informed the same about the sexual harassment and she had taken the victim to the Deputy Commissioner’s Office and got filed the complaint. During the course of cross-examination, nothing has been brought on record. Except that nothing has been brought on record. 10. P.W.12 is the witness to whom the victim has contacted and informed the same about the sexual harassment and she had taken the victim to the Deputy Commissioner’s Office and got filed the complaint. During the course of cross-examination, nothing has been brought on record. P.W.13 is the Investigating Officer, who has investigated the case and filed the charge sheet against the accused. On perusal of the said evidence, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused for the other offences and has convicted him only for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. 11. It is not in dispute that against the order of acquittal, the State has not preferred any appeal. Much discussion is not required, since the Trial Court has already come to the conclusion that insofar as the other offences are concerned, there is no evidence. 12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence produced is not sufficient to convict the accused and the conduct of the complainant which goes to show that she has filed a false complaint and intending to extract the money at the instigation of P.W.2. It is his further submission that if there was any harassment, both physically, mentally and sexually by the accused, as she alone used to stay there, she could have left the job and she could have lived freely. Under such circumstances, the evidence is not acceptable. But on perusal of the evidence of P.W.10 – the mother of the victim, she has deposed that as the accused had got admitted the victim to the School and if the sexual assault is disclosed to anybody, she was under the apprehension that the education of her daughter – the victim is going to be discontinued and in that light, she has not disclosed or left the house of the accused. The said apprehension and non-disclosure and not leaving the house by P.W.10 – the mother of the victim appears to be just and proper and there is no exaggeration in her evidence. 13. The said apprehension and non-disclosure and not leaving the house by P.W.10 – the mother of the victim appears to be just and proper and there is no exaggeration in her evidence. 13. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence produced is contrary to the contents of the complaint, as the STD booth was not in an isolated place nearby BSNL Office and a Khanavali was also situated and even the victim has also not intimated the said fact to the mother and even though the victim has deposed that she has disclosed the said fact to P.W.4 – Vijaya, but she has not supported the case of the prosecution. Under these circumstances, the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 11 is not trustworthy to rely and convict the accused for the alleged offences. 14. But on close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.11 – the victim in her evidence she has categorically deposed with regard to the act of the accused. She has deposed that she was working in STD booth and the said fact is not in dispute. She has further deposed that on 14.12.2001 at about 01:15 p.m., accused came and had fell on her forcefully and tried to kiss her and tried to pull her to another room for sexual assault and she resisted and came out of the said STD booth. Though during the course of cross-examination, she has deposed that she has not intimated the said fact to the mother – P.W.10, but there is nothing brought on record during the course of cross-examination to discard the evidence of P.W.11 – the victim. However, for sexual assault said to have been committed on P.W.10, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the said evidence is not sufficient and has rightly acquitted the accused. But when the victim herself has deposed before the Court that the accused has misbehaved with her and tried to outrage her modesty, then under such circumstances, without there being any material, her evidence cannot be discarded. Even during the course of cross-examination of that witness, nothing has been brought on record to suspect the credibility of the said witness. No woman will come forward and try to falsely depose that a man has tried to outrage her modesty. Even during the course of cross-examination of that witness, nothing has been brought on record to suspect the credibility of the said witness. No woman will come forward and try to falsely depose that a man has tried to outrage her modesty. Even during the course of cross-examination, no such material has been brought to show that there was some enmity to falsely implicate the accused in the said crime. Though it is argued by the learned counsel that at the instance of P.W.12, the accused has been falsely implicated and they have tried to extract the money from the accused, but I am of the considered opinion that there is no such material produced in this behalf to substantiate the said fact. When the evidence produced is of a sole witness who is none other than the victim and if it reposes the confidence of the Court, then under such circumstances, the same can be relied upon to bring home the guilt of the accused. In that light, the evidence of P.W.11 is trustworthy and reliable. The Trial Court after taking into such evidence has come to a conclusion and has rightly convicted the accused. There are no good grounds to set aside the judgment of the Trial Court. 15. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accused – appellant is aged about 64 years and he is working as a Section Officer in BSNL Office and now he has retired from the service and if he is convicted and sentenced for imprisonment, nobody is there to look after the age old wife and much prejudice is going to be caused. He poses by referring to the old Section of IPC before the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2013, as the alleged offence has taken place on 14.12.2001. The punishment provides is that imprisonment of either description for a term which may be extended to two years or with fine or with both. Now after the amendment, the sentence has been modified and the accused is liable to be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may be extended to five years and shall also be liable to fine. Now after the amendment, the sentence has been modified and the accused is liable to be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may be extended to five years and shall also be liable to fine. In that light, it is his submission that instead of sentencing for imprisonment, if the fine amount is enhanced, under such circumstances, it is going to meet the ends of justice. 16. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 17. The victim was minor at the time of the incident, thereafter she attained the age of puberty and subsequently she got married and now she is living happily along with her husband and even the records and the evidence goes to show that the accused has helped the victim for the purpose of her education and has also looked after the complainant and the victim. 18. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on hand and even as per the old Act, it gives a discretion to the Court either to impose the sentence of imprisonment or fine. In that light, if the fine amount is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-, as against Rs.25,000/-with a default sentence, then it is going to meet the ends of justice. Under the said circumstances, I pass the following order: ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant – accused under Section 354 of IPC is confirmed. However, by taking into consideration the age and as the accused was a retired employee of BSNL, if the fine amount is increased while sentencing, then it is going to meet the ends of justice. In that light, the sentence of imprisonment for a period of one year is set aside and the fine amount has been enhanced to Rs.50,000/-as against Rs.25,000/-with a default sentence of six months imprisonment. Out of the fine amount, an amount of Rs.40,000/-is ordered to be paid to the victim – P.W.11 as a compensation on proper identification and acknowledgement. Appellant has to deposit fine amount within one month after release of this judgment. If it is not deposited, then the Trial Court can recover by adopting legal course.