The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity to establish the accused's knowledge of the victim's caste for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, and the violation of Rule 7(1) of SC/ST (PA) Act vitiating the criminal proceedings.

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant as against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.119 of 2005 dated 05.02.2010 conviction and sentencing the appellant to pay a fine of Rs.300/- in default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week for the offence under Section 341 of IPC; and to undergo one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of fine to undergo simple imprisonment of six months for the offence under Section 506(1) of IPC; and to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of fine to undergo six month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.12.2004 at about 4.00 p.m., P.W.1 Vijayalakshmi belong to Schedule Caste was grassing her cattle at Semedu Village near Kuruvikaran odai in the land belong to one Rajendiran. The accused pulled her hand and compelled her to kiss him and also pulled her skirt and jacket. Further, the accused also threatened her with dire consequences, if she not come to have sexual intercourse at sugar cane land. P.W.1 further submitted that at the time of occurrence no one was there and while some were crossing the said place and after seeing them, the accused flew away form the place of occurrence. She informed the same to her mother. Thereafter, they went to the owner of the land one Rajendiran and informed about the occurrence. After they informed the said occurrence to the head of the Panchayath of the said village and lodged complaint before the Kanjanur Police Station, which was marked as Ex.P.1 and also handed over her skirt and jacket, produced as M.Os.1 and 2. She was examined as P.W.1. P.W.2, the Special Sub Inspector of Police received the complaint from P.W.1 and registered the same in Crime No.257 of 2004 for the offence under Sections 354, 506(1) IPC r/w Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST act and the First information Report was marked Ex.P.2. The offence is being enquired by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, it was sent to P.W.9 for investigation.

3. P.W.3, the mother of the victim P.W.1, after hearing the incident happened to P.W.1, approached the land owner Mr. Rajendiran and also head of the panchayath and no positive action and as such they went to police Station and lodged complaint. P.W.4, independent witness turned hostile. P.W.9, took up the case of the investigation and filed charge sheet as against the accused for the offence under sections 341, 506(i) IPC and 3(1)(xi) SC/ST (PA) Act on 09.05.2005. When, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and produced M.O.1 and M.O.2. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as afore mentioned. As against which, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there was a delay in lodging the complaint. Admittedly, the occurrence was took place on 17.12.2004 and the complaint was lodged only on 19.12.2004 and the prosecution failed to explain the delay caused in registering the FIR. More over, no one has spoken about the date of occurrence and no specific date was mentioned in the complaint as well as the FIR. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond any doubt against the accused. Immediately after the occurrence, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the owner of land Mr. Rajendirean and head of the Panchayath and only thereafter they went to Police Station to lodge complaint. The prosecution did not examine, the said Rajendiran and head of the panchayath and as such there was no such panchayath and the delay is not at all explained by the prosecution.

6. Further the entire case of the prosecution vitiated, since P