JUDGMENT :

The appellant was accused No.3 before the trial Court in Special Case No.219/2009. She and accused Nos.1 and 2 were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 109 R/w 34 of IPC and were sentenced to simple imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- each.

2. While the above appeal filed by the appellant/accused No.3 was pending, this Court by order dated 01.07.2017, in Criminal Appeal No.3614/2011 partly allowed the appeal filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 confirming the conviction and sentence awarded on accused No.1 and acquitting accused No.2 of the said charges.

3. The case of the prosecution as borne on record is that the complainant (PW.3) was working as a daily labourer as an assistant in Morarji Residential School at Nidagunda. She was a widow. At the relevant time, accused No.1 was working as warden of the said residential school and accused No.3 was appointed as a daily wager. Accused No.2 was the Taluka Social Welfare Officer.

4. PW.3 lodged a complaint on 12.09.2009, alleging that accused No.1 was harassing her and insisting her to have sexual relationship with accused No.2. On 05.09.2009 at about 1:30 p.m., when she was working in the kitchen, accused No.1 pulled her hand and asked her to proceed to the room of accused No.2 saying that accused No.2 had affection towards her and he would regularize her employment. The further case of the prosecution is that when PW.3 resisted, accused No.3 induced and instigated her to carry on sexual activity with accused No.2 and when her coworkers came to her rescue, accused Nos.1 and 3 abused her calling out her caste.

5. Based on this complaint, a case was registered against accused Nos.1 to 3 and after investigation, charge sheet was laid against them under Sections 354, 109 R/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (i), (xi) (xii) of SC/ST (PA) Act. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Complainant was examined as PW.3. Her coworkers who were cited as eyewitnesses were examined as PWs.6 to 9. The prosecution relied on 10 documents, marked as Exs.P.1 to P.10. The portion of the statement of PW.8 was marked as Ex.D.1 on behalf of the accused. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances. Considering the above materials, by judgment dated 18.06.2011, the trial Court found all the accused persons guilty of the above offences and convicted all the above persons for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 109 R/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, sentenced them as stated above. The charges under the provisions of SC/ST (PA) act were held not proved. As already stated above, the appeal filed by accused Nos.1 and 2, has been disposed of by this Court by order dated 01.07.2017, in Criminal Appeal No.3614/2011, whereby the sentence awarded on accused No.1 is confirmed and accused No.2 is acquitted of the charges under Section 354 R/w 34 of IPC.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has committed serious error in convicting the appellant for the alleged offences under Sections 354 and 109 R/w 34 of IPC. The allegations made against the appellant did not attract the above offences. The trial Court has failed to take into consideration the material contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant and PWs.6 to 9. It has failed to note that the evidence given by PW.3 before the Court is contrary to the version narrated by her in her complaint Ex.P.3 leading to doubt her motive. The inordinate delay in lodging the complaint has escaped notice of the Court. Further, she would submit that the case of the appellant stands at par with accused No.2 who is acquitted by this Court. The allegations attracting Section 354 are directed only against accused No.1. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the appellant herein outraged the modesty and abetted the commission of the said offence. T