In the memorandum of revision, it has been stated that the accused revisionist has been wrongly convicted, he was never charged under Section 354 I.P.C. and without framing charge under said Section, he has been convicted. The prosecutrix, Shanti Devi (P.W.2) had tried to concoct a wholly false story and has deposed as if an attempt to rape was made to constitute offence under Section 376/511 I.P.C. but the said statement has been rejected by the trial court on the basis of cogent reasons, therefore, she could not be deemed to be a reliable witness for the purposes of accused being held guilty under Section 354 I.P.C. There is absolutely no evidence on record to suggest that any attempt to outrage her modesty was made. Even if, the prosecution story is taken to be true, the offence against the accused-revisionist would fall under Section 323 I.P.C. and not under Section 354 I.P.C. as the basic ingredients to constitute offence under Section 354 I.P.C. were lacking. The statement of P.W.2 that she was caught from the back and then the revisionist had fallen upon her, would not constitute offence under Section 354 I.P.C. There is solitary statement of P.W.2 which is wholly unreliable and there is no corroboration of said statement by independent witnesses. The father of the prosecutrix, who has been examined as P.W.1 was not an eye-witness. The accused applicant was below 16 years of age on the date of occurrence, hence, he should have been tried in accordance with the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act by Juvenile Justice Board and not by the Sessions Court and he is entitled for benefit of first offender under U.P. First Offenders' Probation Act, 1938, therefore, the impugned judgement and order should be set-aside and the revisionistaccused should be acquitted.
