JUDGMENT

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. — Appellant faced trial for alleged commis¬sion of offences punishable under Sections 354 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the ‘IPC’) and Section 3(1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the ‘Act’). He was convicted and sentenced to undergo three months and six months custodial sen¬tence for offences relatable to Section 448 IPC and Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act respectively. No separate sentence was imposed for the other offence. Aforesaid conviction and sentence was affirmed by the High Court.

2. Prosecution case which led to the trial is essentially as follows :

2.1 While the victim (PW-1) was alone in her house on 1.10.1992 at about 2 p.m. the accused entered into her house, went to the kitchen where she was cooking and attempted to catch hold of her hand, that when she attempted to escape from him by running to the front room and attempting to close the door, the accused followed her, opened the door forcibly and caught hold of and grasped her, when she made a hue and cry her brother PW-3 and other witnesses including PW-2 came there, and at that time the accused left PW-1 and pushed down PW-3 from the verandah and went along with his parents who came there hearing the hue and cry.

2.2 PW-1 lodged the first information report at the Kannama¬li police station on 2.10.1992 and a case was registered against the accused under Sections 448 and 354 IPC and Section 3 (1)(xi) of the Act. The C.I. of Palluruthy took up the investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused after completing the investigation.

2.3 During trial, nine witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version. One witness was examined to substantiate the plea of false implication raised by the accused. On consid¬eration of the evidence on record, learned sessions judge. Ernaku¬lam found the accused guilty and convicted him as aforesaid. Ac¬cording to learned sessions judge the offence punishable under Section 3(1) (xi) of the Act is an aggravated form of an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and, therefore, no separate sentence for the latter offence is called for. Appeal before the Kerala High Court did not bring in any relief to the appellant.

3. In support of the appeal, Mr. K. Sukumaran, learned senior counsel submitted that the evidence on record clearly established that there was false implication. According to him, PW-3, the brother of PW-1 outraged modesty of the appellant’s sister after trespassing into their house on 27.9.1992. The sister of the accused was examined as DW-1. She is an unmarried girl and hence the family members counselled her not to make any complaint about the incident to avoid publicity. Apprehending legal action against PW-3 a false case was made with the active support of a communal organization against the appellant.

4. The prosecution version is that at about 2.00 p.m. on the date of occurrence i.e. 1.10.1992 accused entered into the kitchen of PW-1 and caught hold of her hands and tried to outrage her modesty. She is a married woman with children. The informa¬tion was lodged at police station on the next date. This itself shows that there is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and as the incident involving PW-3 took place on 27.9.1992, as a counter blast a false case was instituted. Additionally, it was submitted that the conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is clearly unsustainable and learned sessions judge had no jurisdiction to try the offence.

5. Residually, it is submitted that the incident took place more than a decade back and the appellant has suffered custodial sentence for nearly 3 months and, therefore, after this long passage of time it would not be proper to send the accused back to custody.

6. We shall first deal with the plea about false implica¬tion. It is seen that though there was some delay in lodging the FIR, it is but natural in a traditional bound society to avoid em