JUDGMENT :

P. VELMURUGAN, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Sessions Court for exclusive trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Villupuram in Special S.C. No. 27 of 2017, dated 03.10.2019.

2. The respondent Police have registered a case in Crime No. 195 of 2016, for offence under Sections 147, 294(b), 352 and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 against the appellant/A2 and A1 on the complaint (Ex.P1) given by the defacto complainant (PW-1). After completing investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Sessions Court for exclusive trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Villupuram and the same was taken on file as Special S.C. No. 27 of 2017.

3. After completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C. since there was a prima facie material to frame charges against the appellant/A2, the learned Sessions Judge, farmed charges under Sections 352, 506(i) IPC and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998.

4. After completing the trial and hearing of the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Judge found the appellant/A2 guilty for offence punishable under Section 352 IPC and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment and for offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment. The appellant was acquitted for the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and A1 was acquitted for the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 506(i) IPC.

5. Challenging the above said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant/A2 has filed the present appeal before this Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A2 would submit that the ingredients of the offence under Section 352 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 are not attracted against the appellant and there is no material evidence for the same. The learned counsel would further submit that the prosecution has failed to prove the place of occurrence and in respect of the same, the deposition of the prosecution witnesses are totally contradicting each other. In such a case, while acquitting the appellant under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, he should have been acquitted from the charges for the offence under Section 352 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of woman Act, 1998. The occurrence alleged to have taken place in the house of PW-1 and not in the public place and therefore, Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 would not attract in this case. Further, there was a counter complaint against the defacto complainant (PW-1), which was registered in Crime No. 194 of 2016, for offence under Sections 294(b), 352 and 506(i) IPC. Therefore, due to previous enmity and in order to escape from the complaint given by the appellant, the defacto complainant (PW-1) foisted a false case against the appellant/A2. The learned trial Judge failed to consider the same and also erroneously convicted the appellan