The intention to outrage the modesty of a woman or the knowledge that the act would result in outraging her modesty is the crux of the offense under Sec. 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

Abhijit Sinha, J.

1. Although appellant, Pramod Kumar Pandey, was charged u/s. 376 read with Sec. 511 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 624/16 of 1990/91, arising out of Jamui PS. Case No. 114/89, he was, however, convicted by Sri Nirmalendu Kumar Kanth "Niraj", the then 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui, by Judgment and order dated 23.11.1992 u/s. 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of one year.

2. It appears that one Ramgulam Sah (P.W. 2) filed a petition of complaint on 29.6.1989 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui, alleging commission of offences under Ss. 323, 376, 511 of the Indian Penal Code at the hands of the appellant herein and on the same being transmitted to the concerned Rs. u/s. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Jamui RS. Case No. 114/89 was registered under Ss. 341, 323, 376/ 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The narration in the complaint, briefly, was that at around 12 noon on 28.6.1989 while Rani Kumari (P.W. 5), the complainants daughter-in-law, was attending to her grazing cow in a Bahiyar, the accused arrived suddenly and catching hold of her dragged her forcibly towards a ditch and with the intention to commit rape threw her on to the ground and climbing top her started removing her sari. It is said that when the victim raised protest she was assaulted and a pistol was put against her chest. However, Rani Kumari managed to raise hulla attracted whereby the witnesses arrived seeing which the accused took to his heels. It is alleged that had not the witnesses arrived, the daughter-in-law would have been ravished.

3. After due investigation the police submitted a charge-sheet under the same sections whereunder the case was registered. However, at the trial after commitment a charge only under Ss. 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the sole accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence plea was one of innocence and false implication in persuance of an earlier threat given by the informant to falsely implicate him when the accused had sought for reimbursement of the money given by him as loan to the informant.

4. In support of its case the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses including the doctor and the Investigating Officer, Several documents were also adduced in evidence to give an additional impetus to the prosecution case.

5. The learned trial Judge on consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions advanced by the parties came to a finding that it was a case u/s. 354 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

6. The appellant has sought to assail the impugned judgment and order and in course thereof it was submitted that with the innumerable and glaring discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses it does not inspire confidence and the prosecution case is not above doubt. It was also sought to be submitted that the witnesses claimed by the prosecution to be eye witnesses cannot be accepted as such as it would transpire from their respective testimony that they did not really witness the incident for they had arrived at the scene in pursuance of the alarm raised by which time the alleged accused had vanished.

7. Before dealing with the contentions raised by the defence it would only be apt to analyse the testimony of the witnesses for assessment of their probative value and it would only be in the fitness of things to begin the exercise with the testimony of P.W. 2, Ramgulam Sah, the author of the complaint petition. He does not seem to be an eye witness of the occurrence which is apparent both from the complaint petition as also his testimony in court. In his testimony he stated that while he was working in his fields on hearing hulla at around 12 noon1 P.M. that Pramod Pandey had attempted to commit rape on Rani Dev