The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's analysis of the evidence to establish the charges under Sections 354 and 451 of the IPC and the subsequent reduction of the sentence.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 1.10.2002 and 3.10.2002 respectively, wherein the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 354/451 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). For the offence under Section 354 of the IPC, he had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for one year; for the offence under Section 451 of the IPC, he had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for one year.

2. Nominal roll of the appellant reflects that as on the date when he was granted bail he had suffered incarceration for less than about 4 days. It has been noted that after the release of the appellant, he had not been appearing insptite of notice and even after coercive steps having been taken against him, he has not put in appearance. Learned amicus-curiae has assisted the Court.

3. Record discloses that the incident is dated 24.7.1999. At about 4:00-5:00 am in the morning an information vide DD No. 34 was received in Police post Rajinder Nagar that one Sardar came to roof of House No. 271/272, Raghubir Nagar and had tried to molest a 12 year old girl. The statement of the victim/prosecutrix ‘P’ examined as PW-2 was recorded. The complainant was her uncle Pawan who was also examined as PW-4. The allegations in the complaint were that while PW-4 was sleeping with his niece (prosecutrix) on the roof of house No. 272, he heard cries coming from PW.2; he woke up and found that the appellant Manmohan (neighbour) had opened the zip of his pant and he had removed the underwear of his niece and was seen attempting to kiss her. Accused tried to escape but he was apprehended on the spot by PW-4. The other family members of PW-4 also woke up. On the complaint made by him the present FIR was registered.

4. The MLC of the victim who was examined at 8:00 am on morning of 24.7.1999 reflected the alleged story as disclosed by PW-4. No fresh external injury was noted. Her vaginal smear was taken. Hymen was noted to be intact.

5. The accused was arrested at 9 am. This is evident from his arrest memo Ex. PW-4/C. He was medically examined at 1.30 pm vide memo Ex.PW-5/C. Relevant would it be to note that no injury of any kind was present, although the doctor had opined that there was nothing to suggest that the patient was incapable of sexual act.

6. The fact of no apparent injury on the person of the accused becomes relevant in view of the defence which has been projected by the accused. The accused, in his defence at the time of the cross examination of the witnesses of the prosecution as also in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C stated that he has been falsely implicated. His contention was that he had been asked by his neighbour one Sh. Chanderpushp who was living in the adjacent house No. 273, to check the water tank and so as to ensure that the water was being filled in the tank after the water pump had been switched on. It is for this purpose that he had gone to the roof top of house No. C-273 at about that time. It is admitted that there was no electricity in the area for 24 hours prior. Electricity had come back and after he had started the water pumping motor, when he peeped into the tank the electricity went off again. But soon after it came back. It is further stated that at that point of time since it was pitch dark; while trying to go down the stairs he fell off the roof. Site plan Ex. PW-5/F has reflected house No. 272, although House No. 273 has not been shown, yet PW-4 deposed that the height of the roof top of C-273 was higher than that of C-272. Be that as it may, in all practicality a person falling off from a roof top in the middle of the night when it was dark would have sustained some kind of an injury but none has been reported as per the appellant’s MLC. This defenc