The court determined that the prosecution failed to prove charges under IPC and SC/ST Act due to lack of evidence.

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the order dated 25.01.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial Cases registered under Schedule Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Villupuram, in Sessions Case No.54 of 2020, thereby convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 448 & 354(A) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act”) 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.10.2020 at about

7.30 p.m., when the victim was in her house along with her son, the accused had knocked the door of the victim. Thereafter, he entered into her house and gave Rs.1,000/- and called the victim to share her bed and also pulled her hands to come out from her house. When the victim refused to come out, the accused abused her by using her caste name. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.1334 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 354A and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in Sessions Case No.54 of 2020.

3. On the side of the prosecution, they had examined P.W.1 to P.W.14 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On the side of the appellant, no one was examined and no document has been marked. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offences under Sections 448 & 354(A) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment for the offences under Section 448 of and to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 354(A) of and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, each and also imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Further, the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though the prosecution specifically alleged that the appellant trespassed into the house of the victim and gave a sum of Rs.1,000/- to her son and insisted her to share her bed, the prosecution failed to examine the victim's son and there was no recovery of Rs.1,000/-, in order to bring the charges into home. He further submitted that admittedly, the occurrence took place inside the house of the victim and not in public view and therefore the offences under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act are not at all attracted against the appellant. Further according to the case of the prosecution, the accused insisted the victim to share her bed, who examined as P.W.1. However there was a contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1 and there was no independent witness examined to prove the prosecution. There was an enmity between P.W.2 and the appellant since, the appellant refused to give his daughter to P.W.2's son. Therefore, the present false case has been foisted as against the appellant.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant trespassed into the victim's house and insisted the victim to share her bed. Therefore, it would destroy the modesty of the victim and the Section 354(A) of IPC is very much attracted. Accordingly, the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. Further, the occurrence had happened in the ho