The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of cross-examination, the admissibility of evidence from a hostile witness, and the legal principles related to outraging the modesty of a woman in determining the guilt of the accused under Section 354 of the IPC.

1. Appellants, Md. Rahman, Kalim @ Kalim Chik, questioned the propriety of the judgment of conviction dated 20.07.2015 and order of sentence dated 22.07.2015, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, VIIth, Patna City, Patna in Sessions Trial No.290/2008 whereby and whereunder they both have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 354/34 of the IPC and each one has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years as well as to pay fine appertaining to rupees ten thousand in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for two months, additionally.

2. PW.1, Sahnaj Bano filed written report on 06.03.2007 at about 05.00 P.M disclosing therein that on the same day at about 01.30 P.M her daughter (name withheld), aged about 6 years has gone to provide food to Hafiz of the mosque. After returning therefrom, Md. Rahman, Kalim Chik, lifted her in their lap and taken away inside their shop where, Rahman put her in his lap, Kalim pressed her mouth. Rahman attempted to commit rape whereupon, her daughter anyhow succeeded in rescuing herself, shouted whereupon, she along with others arrived at the shop of accused persons, till then, they both after closing the shop ran away.

3. After registration of Khajekala P.S Case No. 29/2007 investigation commenced and concluded by way of submission of charge-sheet, paving way for conduction of the trial, meeting with ultimate result, subject matter of instant appeal.

4. Defence case as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C is that of complete denial. However, neither oral nor documentary evidence has been adduced in defence.

5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had examined altogether four PWs, PW.1-Sahnaz Bano (informant), PW.2- Md. Naushad, PW.3-Sayad Aan Mohammad and PW-4 is the victim. The prosecution had also exhibited Ext.1-written report, Ext.2-Signature of informant over the same, Ext.2/A-Signature of PW-2 over the written report. As stated above, defence had not adduced either oral or documentary evidence.

6. Very emphatic argument has been made at the end of the learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the judgment impugned whereunder it has been submitted that from the evidence of the victim, it is apparent that she had contradicted status of all the witness that means to say her parents, PW-1, PW- 2. It has also been submitted that the evidence of victim has got primacy and so, will prevail upon the other evidences. From the evidence of victim, it is manifest that though she had deposed that she was kept in lap by the accused persons but, without any ulterior motive. In its continuity, it has also been submitted that case has been compromised though, offences happens to be non-compoundable and in the aforesaid background, the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 happens to be while PW-2, father was recalled on that very score. However, PW-1 informant did not turn up as she deserted PW.2 and so, her evidence should not be taken into consideration. Even if taken, it should be under the guise of PW.2, who being father of victim, a minor to be legally competent to enter into compromise, that too, for welfare of the minor in order to prevent from blemish.

7. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that doctor has not been examined which cast doubt over authenticity of the prosecution version, more particularly, in the background of the fact that from the evidence of PW-1, it is apparent that she had claimed to have seen certain injuries over the person of PW-4, victim which she had not corroborated and so, for that purpose, the evidence of Doctor was necessary. It has also been submitted that no independent witness has been adduced on behalf of prosecution which should also be taken into consideration. I.O has also not been examined and that being so, taking into account the evidence of the witnesses, non-examination thereof, has caused prejudice to the appellant and so, the cumulative effect did not justify the fin