This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 10.4.2003 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 242 of 1999, whereby and whereunder, the appellant was convicted under Sections 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.5000/ under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of fine to undergo a simple imprisonment of 15 days. However, the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

2. Prosecution case, as per written report of the informant Nilu Devi, is that on 11.08.1998 (Tuesday) her husband Santosh Prasad Verma had gone to duty and she was alone in the house. Around 8:00 p.m., her younger brother-in-law Rajendra Prasad, son of Late Sarjoo Prasad (appellant herein) entered the house and molested her and attempted to rape her. She opposed him, on which, he pushed her to the floor and started pressing her neck and hitting her, due to which, she was hurt. She raised alarm for help. On her alarm, her neighbour Datu Majhi arrived at, on which, Rajendra Prasad left her and ran away. Then she told other persons about the incident, who are her neighbours. When her husband came, she also told him about the entire incident. Because it was night, she did not go to the police station then.

3. Thereafter, a case was registered under Sections 341/323/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code as Seraikella P.S. Case No.78/1998, corresponding to G.R. Case No.492/1998. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet, accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Trial No. 242 of 1999. Charge was framed under Sections 376/511 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and he was put on trial.

4. Prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses to prove its case and the learned trial Judge placing reliance on evidences and documents available on records, held the appellant guilty and inflicted sentence, as indicated above. Hence, this appeal.

5. PW4 Nilu Devi is the informant. She has deposed that the incident is of 11.08.1998 (Tuesday) between 7:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. At that time, she was alone in the house and her husband had gone for his duty. At that time, her younger brother-in-law Rajendra Prasad entered the house and started conversing with her. He then started molesting her, catching hold of her hand and pulling her. When she refused to go then he caught hold of her neck and pushed her to the floor and also caught hold of her legs and started pulling her. When she raised alarm, the accused left her and ran away. She came out and told about the incident to Datu Majhi. Her husband came at 9:30 p.m. and she told him about the incident. At night they did not go to the police station. On the next day, they went to the police station. On her saying, her husband wrote out the report, which was read out to her. On finding it correct, she has put her signature on it. Her signature has been marked as Ext.1/1. She has deposed that police sent her for treatment to the Doctor and the Doctor treated her. She has deposed that her treatment was conducted at Saraikella Government Hospital. She has deposed that accused was in Court and she recognized him. In the cross examination, she has deposed that her husband has altogether five brothers. All the brothers live separately. Her mother-in-law is alive. At the time of incident, her mother-in-law was living with them. Currently, she is living with the accused. Because her mother-in-law was staying with them, there was no abuses made by the accused against her. After the incident, there has been conversation with the accused. Even now, relationship is good. There used to be no problem. Now his wife and children do not come in the house. Accused used to come to our house but he