JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 11.02.2019 in S.C.No.50 of 2017 on the file of the learned Mahila Court, Salem.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 27.01.2016 P.W.1-mother of the victim girl went to agricultural work, at that time, the victim girl, who is a mentally challenged person was alone in her house. At around 12.00 noon, the appellant/accused came on his two wheeler i.e. T.V.S.XL Heavy Duty Motor Cycle and trespassed into P.W.1's house and sexually assaulted the victim girl. When P.W.1's sister and P.W.1's brother-in-law's wife went to the house of P.W.1, the appellant ran away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, they informed the same to P.W.1, mother of the victim girl and P.W.4, brother of the victim girl. P.W.1 gave a complaint before respondent police, which was marked as Ex.P1.

3.The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.38 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 376 IPC. After investigation, the respondent police filed a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sankagiri and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.7 of 2016.

4.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sankagiri after considering the fact that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused are triable by the Court of Session, committed the case to the Principal Sessions Court, Salem and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.50 of 2017 and made over to the Mahila Court, Salem. The Mahila Court after completing the formalities framed charges against the appellant for the offences under Sections 451, 376 r/w 511 of IPC.

5.In order to prove the case of the prosecution before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution as many as 13 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and also marked Exs.P1 to P17, besides that one material object was marked as M.O.1. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the incriminating circumstances culled out from the prosecution witnesses were put against the appellant/accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, as many as 3 witnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and also marked Exs.D1 and D2 and no material object was exhibited.

6. The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the materials available on record, found that the accused/appellant is guilty for the following offences :

* For the offence under Section 451 IPC, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months;

* For the offence under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and ordering the sentences to run concurrently.

7. Challenging the said conviction and sentences, the appellant is before this Court.

8.1 The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there was no eye witness to the said occurrence. P.W.2 is the sister of P.W.1 as well as mother of the victim girl and P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.1's brother-in-law and they were cited as eye witnesses, who are only interested witnesses. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have stated that they have informed the said incident to one Krishnammal, who is the relative of the appellant and with her help, they woke up the appellant and thereafter, the appellant left the place with his two wheeler. However, the said Krishnammal, who is said to have been one of the eye witnesses was not examined as prosecution witness, which clearly creates a doubt.

8.2 The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that there are material contradictions between the prosecution witnesses. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have stated that after inte