1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 22.11.1997 passed by Sessions Judge, Raisen in S.T.No.97/1993, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under section 354 of IPC and sentenced for one year’s Rigorous Imprisonment.

2. Prosecution’s case, in short, is that, on 13.1.1993, at about 12.30 p.m., the prosecutrix (P.W.1) went to the river near village Dhokheda, Police Station Bareli, District Raisen to take bath. When she was wearing her clothes after taking bath, the appellant came from back side and threw the prosecutrix on earth. On her shouting, the appellant closed her mouth but, in the meantime, younger brother of the prosecutrix came to the spot and therefore, the appellant ran away. The prosecutrix went to her house with her brother and informed about the incident to her parents. Thereafter, she had lodged an FIR, Ex.P/1, before Police Station Bareli. She was sent for her medico legal examination and treatment. Dr. H.P.Singh (P.W.4) after her examination gave a report, Ex.P/4, in which he found 4-5 simple injuries to the victim. On 23.1.1993, the prosecutrix had submitted a written report to SDOP, Bareli that actually a rape was committed with her and she could not understand that in word “Bura Kaam”, police will not consider the case of rape. Thereafter, case was registered for offence punishable under section 376 of IPC. After due investigation, challan was filed before JMFC, Bareli and it was duly committed to the Sessions Court, Raisen.

3. The appellant abjured from his guilt. He took a plea that he was falsely implicated in the matter. However, no defence evidence was adduced by the appellant.

4. After considering the prosecution’s evidence, learned Sessions Judge, acquitted the appellant from the charges of offence punishable under section 376 of IPC but, convicted him for offence punishable under section 354 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is falsely implicated in the matter. If the prosecutrix could not be believed for offence punishable under section 376 of IPC then, she could not be believed for offence punishable under section 354 of IPC. In alternate, it is submitted that according to the accused statement, age of the appellant was 23 years at the time of the incident. He was not a matured man. He has faced the trial and present appeal for the last 19 years and therefore, it would not be appropriate to send him again to the jail.

7. On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that conviction and sentence is appropriate.

8. Prosecutrix (P.W.1) has stated about the offence of rape in her statement. However, her mother Tulsa Bai (P.W.2) and Hari Singh (P.W.3), brother of the prosecutrix were examined. Though they were not the eye witnesses, however, Tulsa Bai has admitted that her daughter informed about the incident. Report was lodged according to the narration of the prosecutrix given to her but, after 15 days of lodging the FIR, when no action was taken by the police in the case, therefore, due to anger a second FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix. It is true that the prosecutrix has exaggerated the matter in her second FIR, Ex.P/6 but, FIR Ex.P/1 was an FIR which was lodged within 2-3 hours after the incident, whereas, police station was 3 kms away from the spot. The prosecutrix came to the house of her parents after the incident, told the story to her parents and thereafter, she was taken to the police station and therefore, time of 2-3 hours is reasonable in lodging the FIR. Under such circumstances, FIR appears to be in time. Evidence of the prosecutrix relating to offence punishable under section 354 of IPC is also confirmed by her injuries proved by Dr.H.P.Singh (P.W.4). Under such circumstances, if the prosecutrix has exaggerated the matter by subsequent FIR then, her testimony relating to original FIR cannot be th