The central legal point established in the judgment is the evaluation of evidence to determine the applicability of different sections of the Indian Penal Code related to sexual offenses.

LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18-5-1991 and 21-5-1991 respectively passed by Sri Ram Vyas ram, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 422/1990, whereby and whereunder, the appellant was convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo R. I. for five years.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the written report, given by the informant, Chanchalakali Dasi, PW-1, to the officer-in- Charge, Masalia-P. S, on that basis a formal FIR, Ext. 3, was drawn. The informant has alleged that as usual on 14-12-1987 at 6 A. M. She was going to sell murhi to Golbazar. On her way to Golbazar when she reached Sitpahari, then the appellant, Bisheshwar Murmu, who was sitting there, forcefully, caught hold of her with an intention to outrage her modesty. When she raised alarm then the appellant fled away. Shivlal Murmu (not examined) of village Bediakale saw the alleged occurrence. She has alleged that the appellant carries a bad reputation and he always used to commit such type of offence in the village. On 15-12-1981 there was a Panchaiti in the village regarding the alleged occurrence but the appellant did not participate in that meeting rather he threatened the informant that he would not spare the informant lightly. Therefore, on 17-12-1987 she informed the officer-in-charge of Masalia P. S. about the alleged occurrence.

( 3 ) THE learned Court below framed charge under Section 376/511 IPC against the appellant and examined PW-1, chanchalakali Dasi, the informant, PW-2, kashinath Mandal, PW-3, Kanto Gosai, PW-4, Hiralal Mandal, PW-5, Bablu Hembrom, pw-6, Nunu Lai Hembrom, PW-7, Shanker gorai, PW-8, Radha Gupta and PW-9, subhash Pd. Choudhary, I. O. of this case. The learned Court below found that the informant, P. W.-l, has supported her written information and she had informed about the alleged occurrence to all the village witnesses, PWs 2-7, who are hearsay witnesses but had seen the appellant fleeing away from the P. O. Convinced by the evidence of these witnesses, the learned Court below convicted the appellant under Section 376/511 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R. I for five years.

( 4 ) ASSAILING the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below, Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that in this case the only eye-witness, Shivlal Murmu, who has been mentioned in the written information, has not been examined. PW-5, Bablu hembrom, Pradhan of the village and PW-6, nanu Lal Hembrom, are the hearsay witnesses. The informant has not alleged in the written information that she was made naked but she has improved her statement in course of evidence that the appellant caught hold of her, made her naked and threw on the ground with an intention to commit rape upon her. There is a delay of three days in institution of this case. The informant is an old aged lady having grand son aged about seven years. The appellant is also a married person having children. The enmity is admitted in between the parties and due to animosity the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case.

( 5 ) THE learned APP refuting the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that the informant, chanchalakali Dasi, PW-1, has corroborated the prosecution case that this appellant caught hold of her at Sitpahari, made her naked, threw her on the ground and tried to commit rape on her. When she raised alarm, shivlal Murmu reached there and then the appellant fled away. The other witnesses, pw-2, Kashinath Mandal, PW-3, Kanto gosai, PW-4, Hiralal Mandal, PW-5, Bablu hembrom, PW-6, Nunu Lai Hembrom and pw-7, Shankar Gorai, rushed to the P. O. on hearing the alarm of the informant and saw this appellant fleeing away from the P. O. The informant narrated before them regarding the attempt of the appellant to commit rape on her. In view of th