Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral)

This Criminal Appeal, U/S 374 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short Cr.P.C.), has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21-3-2003, passed by Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2002 State Vs. Narendra Chand @ Naresh Chand, whereby the accused was found guilty of offence U/S 354 I.P.C. and he was sentenced to undergo six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months R.I. The accused was further held guilty U/S 3 (1) (xi) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities )Act and was sentenced to undergo six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused was acquitted U/S 3 (1)(3) S.C. and S.T. Act.

2. The prosecution story in short is that on 30-10-2001 at about 11 a.m. the accused Narendra Chand attempted to commit forcible rape upon Km. Maya a minor girl of Keshave Ram, who belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. The written report of the incident was handed over by Keshav Ram to Sub Divisional Magistrate Pithoragarh. On the basis of written report Ext. Ka.1, chick F.I.R. Ext. Ka.4 was prepared and a case crime No. 2/2001 U/Ss 376, 392, 323 I.P.C. was registered against the accused. The Investigating Officer during investigation prepared site place Ext. Ka.5 and arrest memo Ext. Ka.6. The girl was medically examined by the doctor and medical report Ext. Ka.2 was prepared. After completing the investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet Ext. Ka.3 against the accused U/Ss 323, 324, 354, 76/511 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(111-Xi) S.C. S.T.Act. 2

3. The C.J.M. Pithoragarh vide his order dated 15.1.2002 committed the case to Sessions for trial.

4. The Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh on 28-1-2002 framed charges U/Ss 376/511 IPC an Section 3(1)(111)(xi) of S.C. and S.T. Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution to prove its case got examined P.W.1 Km. Maya, prosecutrix, P.W.2 Keshav Ram, complainant of the case, P.W.3 Dr. Lalit Joshi, who has medically examined the prosecutrix, P.W.4, Himalay Sigh martolia, the I.O. who has submitted charge sheet against the accused and P.W.5, Umed Ram Tamta, I.O. who had investigated the case at the initial stages.

6. The accused in his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C. has denied the prosecution case and alleged that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity. He bore enmity with Prahalad Singh and Prahalad Singh in collusion with Kesav Ram has lodged false case against him. The accused did not adduce any evidence in his defence.

7. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the entire evidence on record and hearing the parties convicted the accused U/S 354 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1)(xi) of S.C. and S.T. Act.

8. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the story of the prosecution that the accused had attempted to commit rape upon the prosecutrix and on same set of evidence the learned Sessions judge has convicted the accused U/S 354 I.P.C. and U/S 3 (1)(xi) SC and S.T.A. Act and the conviction of the accused is against the evidence on record.

10. By perusal of impugned judgment it is revealed that the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused U/S 354 I.P.C. and U/S 3 (1)(xi) of S.C. and S.T.Act. a person is convicted for an offence U/S 354 I.P.C. where he assaults or use criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty and under section 3(1)(xi) S.C. and S.T. Act whoever assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty.

11. In the case at hand P.W.1, Km. Maya is the prosecutrix. Her statement is important. She has deposed that on 30-