This appeal is preferred by the accused against the

judgment and order dated 30.08.2011 passed by the

Court of Additional Sessions Judge, FTC at Puttur, D.K. in

Sessions Case No.50/2010.

2.

Vide impugned judgment, the trial Court has

convicted the appellant/accused for the offence punishable

under Section 448 and 354 of IPC and sentenced him to

undergo R.I. for a period of three months each for the said

offence and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.2000/-

respectively, with default sentence to undergo S.I. for a

period of one month. Further, the entire fine amount, if

deposited, has been directed to be paid to PW.2/victim as

compensation, under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.

- 3 -

3.

The case of the prosecution is that the

victim/PW2 is a resident of Jaliyar House, Kuvettu Village

of Belthangady Taluk. She had completed her PUC and

preparing for her D.Ed course. While she was in the High

School, she had received student scholarship from

Guruvayankere Nagarika Seva Trust. The accused was a

member of the said trust. Hence, he knew the victim girl.

On 09.01.2010 at 4.00 p.m., the accused visited the

village of the victim and trespassed into her house while

she was alone and on the pretext of asking for drinking

water, he held the victim with an intention to commit rape

and carried her to the room inside the house and made

attempts to commit rape on her. While she was resisting,

her brother (PW.3) entered the house and on seeing him,

the accused escaped.

4.

On a complaint lodged by the victim, a case

was registered against the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 376 r/w 511 of IPC. Charge

sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Sections

- 4 -

448, 376 and 511 of IPC. After committal of the case to

the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge framed

charges against the accused for the aforementioned

offences, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried.

5.

To bring home the guilt of the accused, the

prosecution in all examined 9 witnesses and got marked 8

documents and MOs.1 and 2.

6.

The defence of the accused was one of total

denial. However, he did not choose to lead any evidence

on his behalf.

7.

The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating

the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the

accused guilty of the charged offences and convicted him

for the said offence and imposed sentence as noted supra.

8.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for

appellant and learned High Court Government Pleader for

- 5 -

the respondent/State and perused the evidence and

material on record.

9.

The victim girl is examined as PW.2. She has

deposed about the accused coming to her house on

09.01.2010 at about 4.00 p.m., while she was alone and

asking for water and when she brought water and gave to

him, he held her hand and took her to the room and tried

to molest her. She has stated that on hearing her

screaming, her brother came and at that time the accused

ran away. She has stated that at the time of incident she

was wearing a nighty and a petticoat and the accused had

attempted to commit rape on her. There is nothing

worthwhile elicited in the cross-examination of the victim

so as to deny the incident. A perusal of her evidence

reveal that the accused had trespassed into her house on

09.01.2010 at about 4.00 p.m., while she was alone and

molested her.

10. PW.1 is the Doctor who examined the victim girl

on 10.01.2010 at around 1.00 a.m. She has spoken about

- 6 -

the victim giving history before her. However, she has

stated there were no injuries noticed on victim’s body. She

has issued the medical certificate marked as Ex.P1.

11. The brother of the victim is examined as PW.3.

He has also corroborated the evidence of PW.1 stating that

he heard the cries of his sister while proceeding to his

house on 09.01.2010 at about 4.00 p.m. and he saw the

accused running away. He has stated about PW.1

revealing the incident to him.

12. PW.4 is the father of the victim. He has als