JUDGMENT : (GOPINATH P., J.) This appeal has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in S.C.No.4/2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court – I, Kalpetta. S.C.No.4/2013 arises out of Crime No.128/2012 registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kenichira Police Station alleging commission of offences under Sections 341, 342, 354, 323 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2000. The allegation leading to the registration of Crime No.128/2012 is that on 17.05.2012 at about 09.30 A.M in the morning, the appellant due to his enmity towards PW2 (a girl aged 16 at the relevant time)had wrongfully confined her in the premises of his house bearing door No.XIII/398, Basavankally, Oorali Colony, Pulpally Grama Panchayat, voluntarily caused hurt to her and had caught hold of her hands with an intend to outrage her modesty and uttered obscene words and thereby he committed the offences alleged against him. 2. The trial court convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 341, 342, 354, 323 and 294(b) of the IPC but acquitted the appellant of the offence alleged under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. On conviction for the offences referred to above, the appellant was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 342 of the IPC, to simple imprisonment for six months and to a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC, to simple imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and to simple imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC in the light of the provisions contained in Section 71 of the IPC. The substantive sentences were to run concurrently. The learned trial Judge also directed that the period from 19.05.2012 to 02.06.2012 (during which period the appellant had undergone judicial custody) will be set-off under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. 3. Sri.K.R.Sunil, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant and PW2 (the victim) belong to two different Scheduled Tribe communities. The learned trial Judge also directed that the period from 19.05.2012 to 02.06.2012 (during which period the appellant had undergone judicial custody) will be set-off under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. 3. Sri.K.R.Sunil, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant and PW2 (the victim) belong to two different Scheduled Tribe communities. It is submitted that while the appellant belongs to the ‘Oorali’ community, the victim belongs to ‘Kattunayakan’ community. It is submitted that even going by the statement of PW2 in the box, the appellant had accosted her on the allegation that a “bandarapetty” (offering chest normally placed in front of a deity) had been taken away by the victim. It is submitted that even if all the allegations raised are accepted as true, the appellant could not have been found guilty of the offence under Section 354 of the IPC. It is submitted that the First Information Statement of the victim, which was recorded by PW7 indicates that there were absolutely no injuries commensurate with the allegations. It is submitted that this is also confirmed by the evidence tendered by PW9, Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Center, Pulpally. Therefore, it is submitted that the offence alleged under Sections 341, 342 and 323 of the IPC cannot be sustained. It is submitted that the conviction for the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC also cannot be sustained as the evidence of PW2 (the victim) does not even indicate as to the abusive, humiliating or defamatory words that were allegedly used by the appellant. It is submitted that the conviction under Section 294(b) of the IPC is solely on the statement of PW3 (the younger sister of the victim). It is submitted that in the absence of any specific statement from the victim regarding the words, if any, used by the appellant, the finding that an offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC has been committed cannot be sustained. The learned counsel has taken the court through the depositions of PW2, PW3, PW7 and PW9 in support of his contentions. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has referred to the judgment of the trial court as also to the depositions of PWs 2 and 3 to substantiate that the offences alleged have been committed by the appellant. The learned counsel has taken the court through the depositions of PW2, PW3, PW7 and PW9 in support of his contentions. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has referred to the judgment of the trial court as also to the depositions of PWs 2 and 3 to substantiate that the offences alleged have been committed by the appellant. It is submitted that the evidence in the case is sufficient to support the conviction for the offences under Section 341, 342, 323 and 354 of the IPC. However, the learned Public Prosecutor very fairly admits that the evidence of PW2 does not indicate any abusive, humiliating or defamatory words that had been used by the appellant in order to attract the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the records and the depositions of PWs 2, 3, 7 and 9, I am of the view that while the conviction under Sections 341, 342 and 323 of the IPC can be sustained, there is absolutely no evidence that could lead to the conclusion that the appellant had committed the offences under Section 354 and 294(b) of the IPC. The reasons which lead me to this conclusion are as follows: Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code reads thus:- “354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty, [shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine].” It is clear from a reading of the provisions of Section 354 of the IPC that in order to constitute an offence under Section 354 of the IPC, there must be an assault or use of criminal force to a woman with an intent to outrage her modesty. The Chief Examination of PW2 (the victim) in its entirety is extracted below:- Even if the entire statement of the victim is taken as the truth, there is nothing which indicates that the appellant had done anything with the intention to outrage the modesty of the victim in order to attract an offence under section 354 of the IPC. On this short ground, I am of the view that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 354 of the IPC cannot be sustained. 6. Coming to the conviction for the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC, it is evident from a reading of the deposition of PW2 that she has not stated anything regarding any song, ballads or words uttered by the appellant to lead to a conclusion that the appellant had committed the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC. Though PW3 has stated that the appellant used a word which may lead to the conclusion that he had committed the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC, in the complete absence of any such allegation in the examination-in-chief of PW2, I am clear in my mind that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC also cannot be sustained. 7. Coming to the commission of offences under Sections 341, 342 and 323 of the IPC, there is evidence to suggest that the appellant had assaulted the victim and had also illegally confined her on the allegation that she had taken away the offering box kept in front of a ‘Kavu’. The absence of injury does not lead to the conclusion that the appellant had not committed the offences alleged under Sections 341, 342 and 323 of the IPC. Therefore, I am of the view that the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 341, 342 and 323 of the IPC can be sustained. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. The conviction and consequently the sentence imposed on the appellant for the offences under Sections 354 and 294(b) of the IPC will stand set aside. The conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 341, 342 and 323 of the IPC is sustained. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. The conviction and consequently the sentence imposed on the appellant for the offences under Sections 354 and 294(b) of the IPC will stand set aside. The conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 341, 342 and 323 of the IPC is sustained. However, in modification of the sentence imposed by the trial court, the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of Court for the offences under Sections 341, 342 and 323 of the IPC. I am also of the view that, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section 395 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)), the appellant can be directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to the victim (PW2) within a period of one month from today (20.05.2025) by depositing the said amount in court. In default, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The appellant shall appear before the trial court at 11.00 A.M on 23.06.2025 in order to suffer the sentence imposed on him and also to pay the compensation amount. The Registry shall forthwith transmit the Trial Court Records to the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kalpetta. The Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly.