This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.03.2002 in SC NO.8 of 2000 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge to try the cases under SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, wl1erein, the appellant herein-accused was found guilty of the offence under section 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the records.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.01.1999 while the de-facto complainant N.Nagarathnam-PW.1 along with her son Ravikumar-PW.2 was attending to onion plantation in her fields, at about 11 a.m. the accused came to her and expressed his desire to have sex with her and when PW.1 refused to oblige him, the accused grew wild and attacked PW.1. He also abused her in the name of her caste i.e., 'mala' and caught hold of her tuft and dragged her on to the floor and outraged her modesty. When PW.2 intervened, the accused pushed him away and after little struggle, PW.1 escaped from the clutches of the accused. Immediately thereafter, PWs.1 and 2 went to the village centre and informed PW.3-Gandham Venkataramana and Gulla Chinna Appalakonda-L W .3. The accused who came there, threatened PW.1 with dire consequences. On the same night at 9 p.m. PW.1 gave a report Ex. P.1, which was registered by PW.6-Head Constable of Nathavaram PS as FIR EX.P.3 in Cr.No.1 of 1999 under Section 3(x), 3(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act').

During the course of investigation, PW.6-Sub Inspector of Police, inspected the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch Ex.P.4 and examined witnesses and arrested the accused on 11.01.1999. After completion of the investigation, PW.7 -Sub Divisional Police Officer, Narsipatnam, verified the investigation and filed charge sheet. PW A-Mandai Revenue Officer, Nathavaram issued caste certificate EX.P.2 to the effect that PW.1 belongs to 'SC - Mala' community.

4. The accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty to the charge under Section 3(x) and 3(xi) of the Act. In support of their case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4. The accused examined himself as OW.1 and marked Exs.0.1 and 0.2. Subsequently, the learned Public Prosecutor filed a memo requesting the Court to frame an alternative charge under Section 3541PC. The learned Sessions Judge, allowed Cri. M.P. No. A 95 0f 20010n23.10.2001 to frame alternative charge under Section 354 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred CrI.R.P.1435 of 2001 and this court dismissed the same on 13.12.2001.

Thereafter the accused pleaded not guilty to the alternative charge. At the request of the accused, PWs.1, 2 and 6 were recalled for further examination.

5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 3(x) and 3(xi) of the Act and acquitted him thereof on the ground that the investigation was not conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is competent officer to conduct the investigation in such cases as per Rule 7 of the S.C. and the S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 3541 PC and convicted him for the same and imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed the present appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant accused would mainly contend that the learned Sessions Judge having found the accused not guilty of the offence under section 3(x) and 3(xi) of the Act, erred in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC on the same set of facts and circumstances. I n that regard, he relied upon a decision in 'Kuriminelli Chinna v. State of A.P.,1' wherein, this Court