An attempt to commit an offense under Section 511 of the IPC is not made out when the act in question is specifically covered by another provision of the IPC, such as Section 354B, which provides for assault or criminal force with intent to outrage modesty.

JUDGMENT

Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Jalpaiguri in Sessions Case No. 390 of 2014 on 28th March, 2017 whereby learned Trial Court recorded an order of conviction and sentenced the convict to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three and half years for committing offence within the meaning of Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code subject to the provision of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Briefly stated, the victim girl was 15 years of age as on 1st November, 2012. On the fateful day at about 1.30 p.m., while she was engaged in her study, the accused persons, who happened to be her next door neighbours, entered into the room and embraced her from behind. They also tried to take off her wearing apparels with an intention to ravish her. The victim girl screamed for help and the accused persons fled away. At the relevant point of time mother of the victim was not present in the house, after she came back the victim narrated the entire incident. However, they could not gather courage to inform the matter to police primarily being intimidated by the accused persons. After five days of incident the victim girl informed the police in writing. As the information disclosed offence cognizable in nature, Moinaguri P.S. Case No. 425/12 dated 6th November, 2012 was registered under Section 448/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. Trial was commenced on 1st July, 2015 and accused persons stood trial pleading their innocence.

3. To bring home charges, prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. After scrutiny of the evidence both oral and documentary, learned Trial Court was pleased to pass the judgement impugned.

4. Assailing the impugned judgement and order Ms. Subhanwita Ghosh, learned Counsel for the appellant Kamal Debnath, submits that prosecution case suffers from serious infirmity. Learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgement without any cogent and reliable evidence. Drawing my attention to the testimony of the victim who adduced evidence as P.W. 1, Ms. Ghosh submits that according to P.W. 1, being attracted by her scream Suniti Adhikary, Shyamapada Mandal, Chanchala Mandal and others came to the place of occurrence and she was taken to the house of Suniti Adhikary. But none of the aforesaid persons adduced evidence to support the prosecution case. Therefore, uncorroborated testimony of P.W. 1 cannot be said to be sufficient to enchain accused with criminal liability. There was enmity between the families over a piece of land and because of such enmity the accused persons have been falsely implicated.

5. From the attending facts of the case it is admitted that the victim girl was all alone in the house. She was preparing for her ensuing Secondary Examination when the accused persons came into her room and embraced her from behind and even tried to disrobe her. During cross-examination as P.W.1, the victim girl stated:- 'The accused persons hugged me, tried to whip off my wearing apparels and all these took 5/7 minutes. The accused persons tried to whip off my wearing apparels after felling me on the floor'. Thus I feel no hesitation to hold that P.W. 1 the victim girl has stood the test of cross-examination. She has been thoroughly cross-examined but nothing has come out to impeach her credibility.

6. Corroboration is a rule of prudence and not a mandate of law. Evidence Act never demands in particular number of witnesses to prove any fact in issue. It has now become well settled principle of law that testimony of solitary witness is sufficient to record an order of conviction if Court finds a ring of truth in her testimony. The victim girl as I have already pointed out, stood the test of cross-examination. There is nothing to shake her credibility. True it is the neighbouring people who adduced evidence as P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 did no