JUDGMENT :

In Crl. M.P. No. 393 of 2021, petition, seeking suspension of sentence, this court by an order dated at 21.01.2020 not inclined to entertain the suspension of sentence and directed the Registry to prepare the typed set of papers and post it for hearing on 09.03.2021. Thereafter, typed set of papers made ready and it was listed before this Court. Since the appellant is confined in the Jail, both the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl.side) are ready for taking up the appeal for final hearing. In view of the same, the appeal is being disposed of.

2. The appellant was convicted by the learned Principal District Session Judge, Tiruvannamalai in S.C.No.82 of 2018, dated 20.11.2020, for the offences under Sections 448, 323 of IPC, and sentenced him to undergo Six months Simple Imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/- in default in payment of fine to undergo One month Simple Imprisonment. Further, he was convicted for the offences under Section 376 of IPC., to undergo Seven years Rigorous Imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,000/- in default in payment of fine to undergo One year Rigorous Imprisonment. As against the said judgment, the present appeal is filed.

3. The gist of the case is that PW.1 was residing at Kengalamahadevi Village and on 11.08.2015 at about 3.00 p.m., when she was alone in home, the appellant with an intention to commit rape, forcibly entered into the house of the victim and attempted to commit rape. At that time, when victim/PW.1 resisted the same, she sustained injuries on neck, hand and legs. When PW1 attempted to flee from the appellant, he had taken a billhook and threatened her to do away with her life. Further, he had also caused damages to the utensils, which were available at the place and damaged the motor wires and attempted to commit rape. Thereafter, on complaint lodged by the victim, the case came to be registered for the offences under Sections 448, 376 r/w 511, 323, 506 (ii) of IPC., and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman (Amendment) Act, 2002 and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The trial court examined all witnesses and materials adduced before it, thereafter, convicted the appellant as stated above.

4. In this case, PW.1 is the victim. PW.2 was present in the scene of occurrence but not supported to the case of the prosecution. PWs.3 & 4 are the witnesses to the observation mahazar, they have also not supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, their signature alone was marked. Pws.5 & 6 are the witnesses for the seizure mahazar and these two witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and only their signatures have been marked. PW.7, is the son of the victim/PW.1, who is residing in Chennai and the occurrence had been narrated to PW.7 by PW.1 and he is not an eye witness. PW.8, is the utensil merchant, who has given the valuation for the damaged vessels. PW.9 is the casualty Doctor, who had examined the victim/PW.1 on 11.08.2015 and issued the Accident Register/Ex.P6. PW.11, is the Assistant Surgeon, who had given Wound Certificate/Ex.P7. PW.10 is a Woman Constable, who accompanied the victim to the Doctor/PW.11 on 23.08.2015. PW.12 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who received the complaint and registered the First Information Report/Ex.P9. PW.13 is the Investigation Officer, who took up the investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared the observation mahazar/Ex.P10, rough sketch/Ex.P11 and seizure mahazar/Ex.P12. Thereafter, seized the material objects 1 to 3 and examined the witnesses present in the scene of occurrence, referred PW.1 to the hospital for treatment on 23.08.2015 along with medical memo. On completion of investigation filed the charge sheet on 28.09.2015 for the offences under Sections 448, 376 r/w 511, 323 and 506(ii) of IPC.

5. In the Trial Court, on the side of the pro