JUDGMENT :

P. VELMURUGAN, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai (Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai) in S.C. No. 317 of 2015.

2. The respondent Police have registered a case in Crime No. 570 of 2015, for offence under Sections 376 and 511 IPC against the appellant on the complaint given by PW-1/defacto complainant. After completing the investigation, the respondent Police laid a charge sheet before the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai and the same was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 62 of 2015. After completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C. the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai committed the case to the learned Principal Judge, Chennai, since the offence committed by the appellant is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The learned Principal Judge, Chennai has taken the case on file in S.C. No. 317 of 2015 and made over the same to the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai (Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai). Since there was a prima facie material to frame charges against the appellant, the learned Sessions Judge farmed charges for offence under Sections 450, 324, 376 r/w 511 IPC.

3. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found guilt of the appellant for the offence under Sections 451, 323 and 354 IPC and convicted and sentenced as follows:-

(i) For offence under Section 451 IPC, the appellant shall undergo 1 year Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo further period of three months Simple Imprisonment.

(ii) For offence under Section 323 IPC, the appellant shall undergo six months Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo further period of one month Simple Imprisonment.

(iii) For offence under Section 354 IPC, the appellant shall undergo two years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default to undergo further period of six months Simple Imprisonment.

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

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the victim women (PW-1) has foisted a false case against the appellant and the appellant did not commit any offence as charges framed against him. The learned counsel would further submit that during the year 2014, the appellant lost his tooth in the bike accident and he corrected his denture by placing ceramic caps for his front teeth. On the date of occurrence i.e., on 03.04.2015, at about 01.00 p.m. when the appellant was going to the shop, due to medicine consumed, he got fainted and tempted to vomit, so he went and vomited near the tank. Since it fell on the ladies who sat on the tank, they scolded the appellant and attacked and also handed over him to the Police. Without conducting any enquiry about the occurrence, the respondent Police foisted the above false case against him. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that as if the appellant attempted to commit a rape with the victim woman (PW-1), who was aged about 91 years, it is very strange to state that a person who has got a certificate in NCC alleged to have committed such an offence, that to 91 years old lady. Further, there are material contradictions between the prosecution witnesses, the trial Court failed to consider the same.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the Doctor (PW-7) has stated that the victim informed a known person assaulted her and he noticed a lacerated injury over her upper and lower lips and made entries in the Accident Register (Ex.P4) that the injury is simple in nature. The Doctor (PW-7) has stated that except injury on the lips of the victim (PW-2), no other injury was found on her. Even though, the Advocate before the