HARBANS LAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by accused appellant Uma Ram against the judgment and order dated 31 -5 -1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 29/91, whereby, he has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 376/511 I.P.C. but has been convicted for the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of which to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the relevant facts are that Smt. Suman accompa -nied by her husband Bhagirath went to Police Station, Ratan Nagar where she lodged oral FIR at 7.15 p.m. on 28 -9 -1999 with the allegation that on that very day she had gone to the field of Nathu Ram for grazing the goats. At about 12.30/1.00 p.m. she was sitting in the temporary hut situated at the field of Nathu Ram. The appellant Uma Ram came inside the said hut. She tried to come out of the hut but he caught hold of her and fell her on the ground. When she tried to raise hue and cry the appe -llant closed her mouth with one of his hands and after opening his under -wear fell upon her. He raised her œGhaghra  and tried to commit rape on her but she resisted and pushed him away. When she tried to run away, he caught hold of her and in the scuffle her glass bangles were broken and her œOdhana  was torn. She somehow managed to free herself from his clutches and ran away from there to the village. Then the accused appellant also went away to his own field. On reaching her house she narrated the incident to her mother -in -law. Her husband also returned to home after sometime and she also told him about the incident. There -after, she accompanied by her hus -band and her mother -in -law and other persons of the village went to the place of occurrence where they found broken bangles lying there in the temporary hut and after returning from there she and her husband came to the Police Station to report the matter. Her oral information was reduced to writing and on the basis of this report F.I.R. No. 45/90 was registered for the offence under Sections 376/511 I.P.C. After nece -ssary investigation the challan was filed for the offence under Sections 376/511 I.P.C. in the Court of Munsif cum -Judicial Magistrate, Churu who committed the case to the court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties and on the basis of available materials on record framed charge for the offence under Sections 376/511 I.P.C. against the accused appellant to which he plea -ded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and produced 5 documents in support of the prosecution case. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused appellant again denied the allegations and stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case and that the evidence produced against him was false and that the witnesses were telling lies against him due to groupism and enmity. He also pleaded that Bhura Ram and his brother had some dispute in connec -tion with sowing of the field by his tractor and Bhagirath, husband of Mst. Suman, the prosecutrix, was working as conductor on the said tractor and it was at his instance that this false case has been foisted against him. Thereafter the learned Sessions Judge heard final argu -ments and passed the impugned judgment as indicated above. Aggrieved by the said judg -ment and order the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and have also perused the entire record thoroughly.;