The appellant has been convicted by the learned Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Washim for the offences punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. The appellant was resident of Dhawanda within the jurisdiction of Manora Police Station, District Washim. The victim lady Radhabai was resident of village Sawali. On the date of incident she had gone to Digras, She had returned from Digras by a Bus and got down at the main road on the junction from where a road leads to her village Sawali. The junction from where the road leads to village Sawali is known as 'Sawali Fata' and the same will be referred to as 'Sawali Fata' hereinafter. After getting down at Sawali Fata, the complainant was proceeding to her village. She was accompanied by P.W.1-Namdeo Jadhav and P.W.2-Dattaram Rathod. It is the case of respondent that P.W.1 and P.W.2 stopped for a while to urinate by the side of road and the victim Radhabai (P.W.5) proceeded further towards Sawali. While she was proceeding to Sawali, the appellant had been on the said road on his motorcycle. He stopped his motorcycle and engaged P.W.5 in a talk. The appellant was working as Headmaster in a school and P.W.5 had visited his school for admission of her child. The appellant started talking with P.W.5 on the said subject. P.W.5 informed the appellant that she had already admitted her daughter in other school. The appellant at this point of time caught hold of P.W.5, pressed her breast and torn her blouse. P.W.5 cried for help. P.W.1 and P.W.2 reached there and the appellant escaped on the motorcycle. Matter was reported to police. The First Information Report was registered for the above stated offences. P.W.5 claims to be belonging to Chambhar Caste, which is a Scheduled Caste. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.

3. The appellant was tried by the learned Special Judge and was convicted as stated hereinabove. The conviction is based on the evidence of six witnesses examined by the prosecution, of which P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5 are the material witnesses whose evidence needs to be appreciated to decide the present appeal.

4. P.W.5 has more or less given evidence in accordance with her First Information Report. She has stated in her evidence that P.W.1 and P.W.2 were left behind and the appellant taking advantage of loneliness of P.W.5 had used force against her to outrage her modesty. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were not present on the spot at the time of incident. However, both of them claimed to have seen the appellant while he had caught hold of P.W.5.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not support the evidence given by P.W.5. P.W.5 has not stated that the appellant continued to catch hold of P.W.5 till arrival of P.W.1 and P.W.2. She has stated that the appellant left the spot immediately after he had seen P.W.1 and P.W.2. The learned Counsel has submitted that this is material contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1 and P. W.2 on the one hand and P.W.5 on the other hand.

6. It is brought to my notice that blouse of P.W.5 was not seized by the police. The case of the respondent is that the appellant had not only pressed breast of P.W.5 but had torn her blouse. In the circumstances, it was contended before me that the blouse should have been seized by the police to establish that the blouse was torn during the course of alleged incident.

7. I have carefully examined the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the failure on the part of the Investigating Officer to seize the torn blouse shall not necessarily affect the case of the respondent adversely, the respondent were under obligation to establish by cogent evidence that the blouse of P.W.5 was torn durin