In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any contradictions or lack of evidence favoring the accused must lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the order passed in S.C.No.114 of 2024 dated 19.09.2024 by the Principal District and Session Judge, Ranipet District, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376 of IPC .

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.11.2014, at about 02.30 a.m, when the victim was sleeping along with her parents with the main door of the house left open, the accused entered the house and with an intention to commit rape, lay down on the victim. Thereafter, he held her nose and kissed her. In turn, the victim had bit the lip of the accused and wriggled out of the hands of the accused. Immediately, he escaped from the scene of crime. Later, the victim found that the accused was her sister's classmate. Hence, the complaint.

3. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent Police registered FIR in Crime No.631 of 2014, for the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376 of IPC . After completion of investigation, final report was filed and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in S.C.No.114 of 2024.

4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined PWs.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to 5. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no document was marked. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 450 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. He was also found guilty for the offence under Section 376 of and sentenced him to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges beyond any reasonable doubt. Further, even according to the case of the prosecution, the accused was the classmate of the victim's sister. Therefore, due to previous enmity, a false case has been foisted against him. After the alleged occurrence, the victim was not subjected to any medical examination. All the allegations are artificial in nature, since according to the prosecution, the appellant broke open the lock, entered into the house of the victim and lay down on the victim with an intention to commit rape, that too when she was sleeping along with her mother and father. The victim and her parents failed to raise any alarm while the appellant attempted to commit rape on the victim. Further, there was a delay in lodging the complaint. The alleged occurrence took place on 07.11.2014, at about 02.30 a.m, whereas, the complaint was lodged only at about 12.30 p.m. Though the victim deposed that she, along with her parents, went to the Police Station at 07.30 a.m, no Police Personnel were available to register the FIR. Further, they had seen the appellant at the Police Station. Therefore, these contradictions are fatal to the case of the prosecution. Unfortunately, without considering these aspects, the Trial Court had mechanically convicted the appellant.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the victim deposed that on the date of occurrence, she was preparing for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission examination and as such, she was studying till 11.30 p.m, on 06.11.2014. At that juncture, the appellant entered her house, lay down on her and attempted to commit rape by kissing her. Immediately,