JUDGMENT :

The convicted sole accused challenges the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Mahila Court, Chennai in S.C.No.225/2013 wherein the appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 366 of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and convicted under Section 354 of I.P.C and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Woman Harassment Act and sentenced to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and also convicted under Section 506 (ii) of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment. The above sentences of the imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused is alleged to have committed an act of kidnapping one "(Miss:X)" a blind lady, who came from Gudiyattam to Villivakkam to learn English Music from "Sangeetha Kalalayam", which is existing at Villivakkam. The accused is an Auto Driver. On 21.03.2020 the auto driver was engaged by her to transport from the Villivakkam bus stand to Music Institute at No.6, North Jaganathan street. The accused did not drive the auto in the route to the said places it was engaged. The accused made different route and parked in an isolated place. Thereafter, he had gone to the back seat where the victim lady was seated and he kissed her after hugging, caused sexual harassment to her by putting his hands on different parts of her body and she shouted. The accused criminally intimidated by saying that he would even go to the extent of killing by murder, if she failed to co-operate. So is the charge sheet.

3. During the time of trial, the victim (the blind) was examined as P.W.1 and the owner of the "Sangeetha Kalalayam" was examined as P.W.2 and Manager was examined as P.W.3 and neighbours in the scene of the occurrence were examined as P.W.4 to P.W.8. Attestor of the Observation Mahazar was examined as P.W.9. P.W.10 Praveen Kumar was co-auto driver in the Villivakkam bus stand. P.W.11 is the President of the villivakkam bus stand auto stand. Ravi, who is the owner of the auto, which is the subject matter of the case, was examined as P.W.12 and P.W.13 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who received the complaint under Ex.P1 and registered Ex.P4- F.I.R and P.W.14 is the Investigation Officer.

4. The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances and he denied his complicity. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai has held that the charges against the accused are proved and accordingly, laid the conviction on all the charges and sentenced him as stated supra.

5. Challenging the correctness of the conviction passed in the above sessions case, the convicted sole accused has preferred this appeal.

6. Heard Mr.C.Mohan Raj, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.R.Vinoth Raja, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side).

7. The learned counsel for the appellant could contend that

(i) the identity of the accused was not proved in the manner known to law and since P.W.1 is a blind (visually challenged person), her evidence cannot be termed as "eye witness" if at all, can be termed only as a "hearsay witness" which is inadmissible in evidence and contented that the evidence of P.W.1 has to be rejected as an hearsay evidence and

(ii) further contended that P.W.7 Lalitha and P.W.8 Sathya can be treated only as a hearsay witnesses and their evidence cannot be admitted in evidence.

8. As to the admissibility of the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6, the learned counsel submits that the trial Court has considered the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 as admissible in evidence and thus has committed an error.

9. The sum and substance of submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the identity of the accused is not established in the manner known to law and it is specifically contended by the counsel that he is not the person who drove the auto on that day, in short, he claims that "