The burden of proof lies with the prosecution in cases of this nature, and the benefit of doubt is awarded in favor of the accused.

Aggrieved over the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 377 IPC read with 511 IPC, the petitioner has filed this revision.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner is a Teacher in Little Flower Higher Secondary School at Salem where P.W.1 is the Headmaster. On 29.3.2001 at about 2.20 p.m., P.W.2 informed P.W.1 that a 9th Standard student by name Allaudin Basha is taken by the accused to the Toilet and on receiving such information, P.W.1 directed P.Ws 2, 4 and 6 to go and find out as to what is happening and they brought P.W.3, the student who made a written complaint to P.W.1. After consulting the Management, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1 complaint at Hasthampatti Police Station, based on which a case was registered under Section 377 read with 511 IPC. Ex.P.4 is the printed form of FIR. It was received by P.W.7, Inspector of Police on 29.3.2001 who issued a receipt CSR 57/2001 and after examining P.W.3, he registered a case in Crime No.181/2001 on 31.3.2001. On 31.3.2001, he went to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.3 Mahazar and Ex.P.5 sketch. He also recorded the statements from P.W.2 and 3 and after completing investigation filed a final report against the accused for offence under Sections 341 and 377 IPC read with 511 IPC.

3. Before the Judicial Magistrate, on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws 1 to 7 were examined as prosecution witnesses and Exs.P.1 to P.5 and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked. on behalf of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked. When the accused was questioned under Section 313(1) Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstance appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused has stated that the evidence let in by the prosecution is false.

4. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the offence alleged against the accused under Section 377 IPC read with 511 IPC is proved and convicted him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.2000/= in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 341 IPC. Aggrieved over the conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Fast Track Court.II, Salem. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing the appeal dismissed the same confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused. Aggrieved over the same, this revision case is filed.

5. Mr.Asokan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the case has been foisted against the petitioner out of the enmity between the Headmaster and the petitioner, there is a delay in registering the case, and the complaint of the victim given to the Headmaster was not produced before the Court and the accused and the victim are not subjected to any medical examination and therefore he submits that the offence alleged against the petitioner is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

6. The victim P.W.3 was studying 9th Standard at the time of occurrence and he was aged 17 years. He had already failed in 8th standard. The accused was a Teacher for 12th standard. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 29.3.2001 at 2.35 p,m., when the accused and P.W.3 went inside one of the Toilet which are situated at the eastern corner of the school. On seeing the accused along with P.W.3, going towards the Toilet, P.W.2 is said to have informed P.W.1, Headmaster about their going towards the toilet and immediately, P.W.1 the Headmaster directed P.Ws.2, 4 and 6 to go to the toilet and see what happens. P.Ws 2, 4 and 6 are said to have brought P.W.3 to P.1's office to whom P.W.3 has narrated that the accused committed unnatural offence by sexually assaulting him by inserting his male organ into his anus and also sucked P.W.3's male organ, as a result of which he suffered pain in his anus. The said complaint of P.W.3 to the Headma