The judgment establishes that the sole testimony of the victim can be relied upon if found to be cogent, convincing, and trustworthy. It also emphasizes that knowledge that the modesty of a woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC.

1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned 6th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 558 of 2001 delivered on 13-06-2003, whereby the learned trial Judge had convicted the accused under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months.

2. I have heard Mrs. Shamsi Haider, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The appellant and his counsel remained absent. With the assistance of the learned APP, I have gone through the record of the case.

3. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that:

In the year 2001, the victim was residing with her mother at Antuji Nagar, Police Station Kotwali, Nagpur. The father of the victim expired about 4 to 5 months prior to the incident. At the relevant time, the victim was studying in 7th standard in Jayvijar Primary School, Bhandewadi. Her mother was doing a labour work at Kalmana Market, Nagpur. The appellant/accused was also residing at Antuji Nagar, Nagpur. On the date of incident i.e. on 27-06-2001, the appellant/accused came to the house of the victim in presence of the mother of the victim. The appellant/accused told them that his mother and sister had gone to attend a marriage and requested the mother of the victim to wash used utensils. At the request of the appellant/accused, the mother of the victim sent the victim to the house of the appellant/accused for washing the used utensils. At about 10.30 am, the victim went to the house of the appellant/accused. When she entered inside the house of the appellant/accused, the appellant/accused caught hold of her hands, made her to fall down and tried to lift her skirt in upward direction. The appellant/accused also started pressing the breast of the victim. On this, the victim raised an alarm and gave a jerk to him. The victim succeeded in rescuing herself from the clutches of the appellant/accused. She rushed to her house. At that time, her mother was present in her house. The victim disclosed the incident to her mother. The mother of the victim along with the victim proceeded to the house of the appellant/accused. However, the house of the appellant/accused was found locked and the appellant/accused was not found there. The victim and her mother returned to their house. The mother of the victim thought as to what is to be done in the matter and on the next day they proceeded to the Police Station. The complaint of the victim was recorded by the Police of Kotwali Police Station. On the basis of the said report, Dattatraya Shinde (PW-10) registered the offence. The complaint is at Exhibit-7. Bramha Shelke (PW-11) recorded the spot panchanama (Exhibit-21). He carried out the further investigation in the matter. The appellant/accused was arrested and after completion of the investigation PW-11 submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant/accused. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned trial Judge framed the charge. After conducting the trial and on analysis of the evidence, the learned trial Judge was convicted the appellant/accused as aforesaid.

4. Mrs. Shamsi Haider, the learned A.P.P. vehemently argued that after careful scrutiny of the testimony of Amrapali (PW-1) who was the victim and Manda (PW-2) who was the mother of the victim, the learned trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the appellant/accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and has rightly convicted the accused.

5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has heavily relied upon the testimony of victim (PW-1) and her mother (PW-2). Unfortunately, the witnesses to whom PW-1 disclosed the incident turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. As regards the testimony of PW-1, it indicates that on the date of incident at about 10.00 am the victim was in her house. At that time