Point of law: It is settled law that the version of a victim of sexual assault is to be treated with due care and circumspection. Minor variations or inconsistencies ought not to be a ground to discard her version.

JUDGMENT :

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 13.05.2009, passed in Sessions Case No. 775 of 2003 by the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Cases, Anantapur (for short, 'the learned Special Judge') convicting the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1989') and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for five (5) years and pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six (6) months more on each account. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Out of the fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-, Rs. 500/- was directed to paid as compensation to the Victim/PW.1.

2. Prosecution case, as alleged against the appellant, is to the effect that the victim, who belongs to Madiga caste, is a resident of Madigapalle in Sangeethampalle village in Amadaguru Mandal; her husband, K. Narasimhulu (PW.4), had gone to Chkkaballapur, Karnataka for coolie works; they used to earn their livelihood by rearing pigs. On the date of the incident i.e., 15.10.2000 at 07:00 A.M. PW.1 and her daughter (PW.2) took the pigs in the vanka, situated in the outskirts of the village, for grazing. At that time, the appellant came to the spot and enquired from PW.1 whether her husband was in the village; PW.1 replied that her husband had gone to Karnataka for working as a coolie. Suddenly, the appellant, with dishonest intention to molest her, held her by the tuft of her hair and pushed her to the ground; she started weeping and raised hue and cry; her daughter also raised hue and cry; she somehow escaped from the clutches of the appellant and ran to the house; she informed the incident to her mother-in-law (PW.3). Her mother-in-law advised to wait for the arrival of her husband and thereafter report the incident. When PW.1 was proceeding to lodge complaint, the appellant had threatened and abused her by taking her caste name. Subsequently, upon the arrival of her husband, on 28.10.2000, Crime No. 28 of 2000 under Section 354 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989 was registered by Amadaguru Police Station for investigation. However, no effective investigation was done in the matter and the Police finally submitted a report as false.

3. Upon notice issued by the Court, PW.1 appeared in the Court and filed private complaint. She and other witnesses were examined on oath and process was issued against the appellant under Section 354 IPC and under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989. The case was committed to the Special Court for trial. Special Court framed charges under Sections 376 R/w.511 and 354 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(xi) and 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 against the appellant. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In the course of trial, prosecution examined four (4) witnesses including the victim (PW.1). Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication due to prior enmity. Appellant exhibited number of documents pertaining to the prior statements of the witnesses in the course of investigation made by the Police namely Exs.D-1 to D-9 to prove his defence.

5. In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge, while acquitting the appellant of the charges under Sections 376 R/w.511 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989, convicted and sentenced him for the offences punishable under Section 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989, as stated hereinabove.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued delay of 13 days in lodging the first information report has not been adequately explained. While PWs.1 and 2 claimed delay was due to absence of the husband of the victim, PW.3 (mother-in-law) claimed delay was due to threats hurled