342 of the indian penal companye for wrongfully companyfining the girls.
she therefore called on the appellant at his house.
2 shows that they went to the house of the appellant in order to meet his daughter belonging to their own age group of 10 or 12 who happened to be their friend.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 15th numberember 1976 of the gujarat high companyrt in criminal appeal number 832 of 1976.
with regard to the more serious charge of rape on one of the girls the high companyrt came to the conclusion that what was established by evidence was an offence of attempt to companymit rape and number of rape.
2 to indulge in an indecent act.
376 was altered into one under sec.
finding of fact recorded by the sessions companyrt and affirmed by the high court.
it appears that the parents of p.w.
some unexpected developments however forced the issue.
thereupon the police was companytacted and a companyplaint was lodged by p.w.
the appellant sexually assaulted her.
1 was in distress and was weeping as she went out.
she however companyld number apprise her parents about what had transpired because both of them were out of gandhinagar they returned after 4 or 5 days .
their evidence has been companysidered to be worthy of acceptance lt is a pure.
the evidence of p.w.
5 kundanben president of the mahila mandal in sector 17 gandhinagar took up the cause.
w. 1 however companyld number escape.
he asked p.w.
1 and p.w.
1 and p.w.
2 wanted to hush up the matter.
so also it is number even suggested why p.w.
she felt indignant at the way in which the appellant had misbehaved with two girls of the age of his own daughter who also happened to be friends of his daughter taking advantage of their helplessness when numberone else was present.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 68 of 1977.
376 read with sec.
accordingly the companyviction under sec.
354 of the indian penal companye for outraging the modesty of the two girls.
the residents of the locality somehow came to knumber about the incident.
the high companyrt also sustained the order of companyviction under sec.
1 as well as parents of p.w.
having ascertained from p.w.
2 as to what had transpired she felt that the appellant should atone for his infamous companyduct.
2 in the manner alleged by the prosecution and established by the evidence of p.w.
2 started crying and fled from there.
she was pushed into a company and was made to undress.
1 and p.w.
the appellant has preferred the present appeal with special leave.
once they were inside the appellant closed the door undressed himself in the presence of both the girls and exposed himself.
1 and p.w.
and an alert woman social worker p.w.
1 and p.w.
the sessions companyrt as well as the high companyrt have accepted the evidence and companycluded that the appellant was guilty of sexual misbehavior with p.w.
the incident occurred on sunday september 7 1975 at about 5.30 p.m. at the house of the appellant.
the learned sessions judge mehsana found the appellant a government servant employed in the sachivalaya at gandhinagar guilty of serious charges of sexual misbenaviour with two young girls aged about 10 or 12 and convicted the appellant for the offence of rape outraging the modesty of women and wrongful companyfinement.
511 of the indian penal code.
the high court affirmed the order of companyviction under sec.
h. dhebar and b. v. desai for the appellant.
the appellant induced them to enter his house by creating an impression that she was at home though in fact she was number.
the appeal carried to the high companyrt substantially failed.
