When can a woman’s modesty be said to have been outraged amounting to commission of an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is one of the vital questions, which these appeals have raised?

2. Under the judgment, dated 18.03.2013, passed, in Sessions Trial No. 656 of 2012, by the learned Sessions Judge, Jehanabad, the sole accused-appellant, Musa Ansari, stands convicted under Sections 293 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. By the order, dated 25.03.2013, passed in the case aforementioned, the accused-appellant has been sentenced, for his conviction under Section 293 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The accused-appellant has further been sentenced, under the said order, to suffer, for his conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Both the sentences have been directed to run consecutively.

4. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus:

(i) On 01.08.2012, at about 9:00 AM, the accused came to the house of the first informant, where the first informants children asked the accused to sing a song and, after a while, first informants son, Horil Kumar, and her elder daughter left for their school and the first informants eldest daughter went outside her house for some work. The accused continued to sing songs and showed pictures, on his mobile, to the first informants youngest daughter (hereinafter referred to as “X”). The accused caught hold of the hands of the first informants 5-year old daughter, X, and, making her hold his penis, told her that he was feeling good and, then, the accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with X, who started bleeding and the accused fled way.

(ii) When the first informant came back to her house, she found her daughter, X, weeping and, on making enquiry, her daughter, X, told her (first informant) that the accused had attempted to insert his penis into her vagina and when she started crying out of pain, accused fled away. Having noticed bleeding from X’s vagina, first informant lodged an information, in writing, in the form of fardbayan, against the accused alleging, inter alia, commission of rape by the accused on her daughter, X.

(iii) Treating the fardbayan, as First Information Report, Jehanabad (Mahila) Police Station Case No. 39 of 2012, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered against the sole accused, Musa Ansari.

(iv) During investigation, first informants daughter, X, was medically examined, her statement, under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded and, on completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, against the sole accused, Musa Ansari.

5. At the trial, a charge, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against the accused. To the charge so framed, the accused pleaded not guilty.

6. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 07 (seven) witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, in his examination aforementioned, he denied that he had committed the offence, which was alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of denial. It is also the case of the defence that accused was the Sarpanch of Surangapur Gram Panchayat and he, according to the Government policy, was trying to construct the boundary wall of burial ground, which made the Hindus angry and the Hindus had falsely implicated him in a case of rape.

7. While the learned trial Court acquitted the accused of the charge framed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, it convicted the accused under Sections 293 and