The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the lack of independent witnesses and insufficient evidence can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Conviction passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR) Madurai, made in Special S.C.No.48 of 2011, dated 04.07.2015.)

1. The appellant / accused was charged and tried before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR) Madurai, made in Special S.C.No.48 of 2011 and after trial, the Court below found the appellant guilty and by Judgment, dated 04.07.2015, convicted the appellant under Section 354 IPC., and sentenced him to undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. The facts of the case are briefly stated hereunder:-

(i) On 10.05.2005, at about 3.00 p.m., when P.W.1 / defacto complainant, was gracing the goats, at Kappaloor, opposite to SIDCO Rubber Company, at that time, the accused came there, along with other accused, hugged P.W.1, by calling her a cast name and torn her saree and jacket, however, P.W.1 escaped from the accused.

(ii) P.W.1 immediately informed the incident to P.W.2 and P.W.3 / father and brother of P.W.1, who in turn, informed the same to the Village people and Village Headman, for taking action against the accused persons, however, they were not taken any action, hence, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1 / Complaint before P.W.6 / Sub-Inspector of Police, on 21.05.2005.

4. On receipt of Ex.P1 / Complaint, P.W.6 registered a case in Crime No.783 of 2005, for the offence under Sections 354 and 506(ii) IPC., and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and prepared ExP.4 / FIR, sent the original FIR to the Court and also sent a copy of Ex.P4 to P.W.7, the Deputy Superintendent of Police.

5. P.W.7 / Deputy Superintendent of Police, on receipt of Ex.P4 / FIR, at about 8 p.m., proceeded to the scene of occurrence on 21.05.2013. Again on 22.05.2013, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared Ex.P5 / Observation Mahazar and Ex.P6/ Rough Sketch, in the presence of P.W.4 and P.W.5, recorded the statement of witnesses, arrested the accused and remanded to the Judicial custody. Further, obtained the community certificate of the accused from the Revenue Department. P.W.7, after completion of investigation filed the final report before the concerned court, for the offences aforementioned.

6. Based on the above materials, the Court below framed charges against the appellant for the offence under Sections 354 and 506(ii) IPC., and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

7. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, 7 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 7 and 7 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. On the side of the appellant / accused, no documents were marked.

8. The Court below by pointing out the incriminating materials recorded during the course of trial, questioned the appellant under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., and the appellant denied the same as false.

9. The trial Court on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also after analyzing the entire oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused in respect of the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC., and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, however, convicted the accused under Section Section 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo 1 month Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by which, the accused / appellant is before this Court by filing the present appeal.

10. Mr.A.Saravanan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that init