ORDER :

1. The Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.6 of 2015 dated 27.02.2017 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Special Court for E.C and NDPS Act Cases) Pudukkottai, reversing the judgment of acquittal made in C.C.No.159 of 2010 dated 12.11.2014 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magisterial, Keeranur.

2. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.159 of 2010, facing the charge under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur.

3. The case of the complainant is that on 19.02.2010 at about 17.30 hours, when P.W.1 defacto complainant was returning from school to her home at Sooriyur and at the place near tamarind tree cross at Chokkampatti Oorani, the accused by closing the mouth of the defacto complainant, had tied turmeric thali thread around her neck and that thereby, the accused had harassed her and outraged her modesty. The respondent police, after completion of investigation, has filed the final report for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, against the accused. During trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case, has examined eight witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and exhibited eight documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and one material object as M.O.1. The accused has adduced neither oral nor documentary evidence.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, upon considering the evidence adduced and on hearing the arguments of both sides, has passed the judgment on 12.11.2014, by holding that the charge under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act was not proved, acquitted the accused under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.6 of 2015 and the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for E.C and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, upon considering the materials and on hearing the arguments of both sides, has passed the impugned judgment dated 27.02.2017, setting aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court and convicted the accused for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused has come forward with the present revision.

5. Whether the impugned judgment of conviction made in Crl.A.No.6 of 2015 dated 27.02.2017 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, is liable to be set aside? is the point for consideration.

6. Admittedly, P.W.2 Rajendran is the father and P.W.3 Muthulakshmi is the mother of the defacto complainant P.W.1. As rightly pointed out by the Appellate Court, the defacto complainant P.W.1 is the sole witness to the alleged occurrence.

7. It is the case of the prosecution that on 19.02.2010 at about 05.30. pm, when P.W.1 was returning to her home from Government Higher Secondary School, Sooriyur and at the place near Chokkampatti Tamarind Tree, the accused who came in a two wheeler, waylaid P.W.1 and by closing her mouth, had tied turmeric thali thread around her neck. But, the victim girl/P.W.1 in her evidence would say that two weeks prior to the occurrence, when she was returning from school at about 05.30 pm, the accused, who came in a two wheeler stopped her and asked her as to why she had come late? and she had replied that her parents are there to question her and that thereafter, the accused had left that place. Thereafter, on 19.02.2010, when she was returning after attending special class at about 05.30 pm, near chokkampatti tamarind tree, the accused had waylaid her and slapped on her cheeks and when she was a