The distinction between preparation and attempt to commit a crime, and the essential ingredients of the offence of indecent assault under Section 354 IPC.

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals are interlinked being directed against the same judgement of the learned Session Judge, Phulbani convicting each one of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused' by name) for offences punishable under Sections 376/511 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'ipc') and sentencing each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

( 2 ) ACCUSATIONS which led to the trial and conviction of the accused persons are essentially as follows :on 25-5-1988 around sun set time the victim' whose name need not be indicated (P. W. 4) was returning to her village Konkola along with her sister and sister-in-law (P. W. 5) carrying some milled rice. The three accused persons met them on the way and asked them to have sexual intercourse with them. When accused Damodar Behera caught hold of the hand, accused Damodhar Karmi and Sagar Barik removed sari from the person of the victim and attempted to commit rape on her, P. W. 5 shouted for help hearing which Trilochan Mahakud, Koira Behera, Chanakhi Bahera and Amulya Gauda rushed to the spot. On seeing them approaching the spot, the accused persons fled away. On 26-5-1988 information was lodged at Baunsuni Police Station by the brother of victim. A case was registered under Sections 354/34, IPC. On Police requisition doctor (P. W. 1) examined the victim, and submitted his report (Ext. 1 ). According to P. W. 1, there were injuries on the left side chest of the victim girl. Few days thereafter on police requisition, the doctor (P. W. 2) examined the victim and did not find any indication of recent sexual intercourse, but opined that the victim was accustomed to sexual intercourse. Accused Damodar Behera was arrested on 7-6-1988, whereas other accused persons surrendered in Court subsequently. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted.

( 3 ) ACCUSED persons pleaded innocence. According to them, there was difference of opinion between accused Damodar and victim on account of sale consideration relating to a piece of land purchased by the victim from Damodar. One witness was examined on behalf of them to prove that the victim sustained injuries in a cycle accident.

( 4 ) ON evaluation of evidence of seven witnesses examined to further the prosecution case, and one examined in support of the defence version, learned Sessions Judge found the accused persons guilty and convicted and sentenced them as indicated above.

( 5 ) IN support of the appeals, Mr. S. C. Ghose, and Mr. L. Pradhan submitted that in view of the accepted position that there was hostility between accused Damodar and the victim, the case has been falsely foisted and on that score the prosecution case should have been held to be unbelievable. Additionally, it is submitted that a look at the statement in the F. I. R. and the statement made during investigation would go to show that the witnesses exaggerated the alleged incident and tried to rope in the accused person in the accusation of having committed rape on the victim. This according to them, is sufficient to show the mala fide intention to falsely implicate and harass the accused persons. Further, it is submitted that even if the prosecution version is accepted in its entirety a case punishable under Sections 376/511 is not made out. Mr. A. Mohapatra, learned counsel for State on the other hand supported the conviction and sentence.

( 6 ) WHERE animosity or hostility is pleaded and accepted, the Court does not throw out the evidence in its entirety because hostility or animosity cannot only provide basis for false implication, but also provide foundation for the crime. In such case, deeper scrutiny of the evidence is necessary. That has been done in the instant case. Additionally, in a tradition bound country like ours, it is hard to believe that an unmarried girl of tender age will throw false accusation involving sexual offences on three persons which would ultimately fe