The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.123 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Thiruvallur. He stood charged for offences under Section 4 of The Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, and Section 354 of IPC. He denied the charges and therefore, he was put on trial. By judgement dated 11.12.2012, the trial court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section 4 of The Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Even though the trial court found him guilty under Section 354 of IPC also, it had not chosen to inflict separate sentence thereunder. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.4 of 2013, before the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur. The learned appellate judge, in turn, by judgement dated 30.03.2015, dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial judge. Now, challenging the affirmation of conviction and the sentence by the appellate court, the petitioner is before this court with the present criminal revision.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- P.W.2 is the victim in this case. She was a minor at the time of the alleged occurrence and was studying IX Standard in a local school. P.W.1 is her mother and P.W.4 is her father. The accused was working in that school as a Physics Teacher. The school, in which, the victim was studying used to organize science exhibition every year. For the year 2007, the science exhibition was conducted in that school on 11.08.2006. The exhibition was conducted on the first floor and the physics laboratory was located at second floor of the school building.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that after the exhibition was over, the victim was asked to clean the garbage left in that the area. Therefore, she went to the physics lab in search of a broom stick where the accused alone was present. When she asked the accused as to where broom stick was kept, accused directed her to take it from loft and he asked her to use a stool which was kept nearby. She, accordingly, took out the broom stick by climbing on the stool. When she was standing on the stool, she had sensed that some body hugged her from her behind. She immediately jumped from the stool. When she turned her back, she saw the accused standing behind her and she requested him to leave her.

4. It is the further case of the prosecution that not minding the request of the victim, the accused molested her by pressing her breasts with his hands and he touched her cheeks and lips with his hands. Despite her protest, the accused kissed on her lips. He thereafter wrapped her bottom dress and touched her private part. The victim had managed to escape from the scene of occurrence and she immediately informed about the incident to her friend P.W.5.

5. It is the further case of the prosecution that, thereafter she again went to the physic lab to put back the broom stick. This time, her friend P.W.5 accompanied her, but, she was waiting out side the lab to watch out the happenings. When the victim entered into the lab, again, the accused hugged her, and the victim raised alarm for help and on haring the same, P.W.5 entered into the lab. On seeing her, the accused released the victim. When the victim and her friend were about to come out from lab, the accused called them and warned them not to disclose the incident to anyone, and he also threatened to fail them, if they disclosed the same to anybody. Therefore, P.W.2 did not inform about the incident to her parents, however, unable to bear the same, she did not go to school for two days.

6. P.W.3 was as a Librarian in the school. After a week's time, P.W.2 informed about the incident to P.W.3. P.W.3, in turn, advised P.W.2 to approach a former teacher (P.W.10) and also gave her telephone numbe