Judgment :- Aggrieved over the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 377 IPC read with 511 IPC, the petitioner has filed this revision. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner is a Teacher in Little Flower Higher Secondary School at Salem where P.W.1 is the Headmaster. On 29.3.2001 at about 2.20 p.m., P.W.2 informed P.W.1 that a 9th Standard student by name Allaudin Basha is taken by the accused to the Toilet and on receiving such information, P.W.1 directed P.Ws 2, 4 and 6 to go and find out as to what is happening and they brought P.W.3, the student who made a written complaint to P.W.1. After consulting the Management, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1 complaint at Hasthampatti Police Station, based on which a case was registered under Section 377 read with 511 IPC. Ex.P.4 is the printed form of FIR. It was received by P.W.7, Inspector of Police on 29.3.2001 who issued a receipt CSR 57/2001 and after examining P.W.3, he registered a case in Crime No.181/2001 on 31.3.2001. On 31.3.2001, he went to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.3 Mahazar and Ex.P.5 sketch. He also recorded the statements from P.W.2 and 3 and after completing investigation filed a final report against the accused for offence under Sections 341 and 377 IPC read with 511 IPC. 3. Before the Judicial Magistrate, on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws 1 to 7 were examined as prosecution witnesses and Exs.P.1 to P.5 and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked. on behalf of the accused no witness was examined and no document was marked. When the accused was questioned under Section 313(1) Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstance appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused has stated that the evidence let in by the prosecution is false. 4. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the offence alleged against the accused under Section 377 IPC read with 511 IPC is proved and convicted him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.2000/= in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 341 IPC. Aggrieved over the conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Fast Track Court.II, Salem. The accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 341 IPC. Aggrieved over the conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Fast Track Court.II, Salem. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing the appeal dismissed the same confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused. Aggrieved over the same, this revision case is filed. 5. Mr.Asokan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the case has been foisted against the petitioner out of the enmity between the Headmaster and the petitioner, there is a delay in registering the case, and the complaint of the victim given to the Headmaster was not produced before the Court and the accused and the victim are not subjected to any medical examination and therefore he submits that the offence alleged against the petitioner is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 6. The victim P.W.3 was studying 9th Standard at the time of occurrence and he was aged 17 years. He had already failed in 8th standard. The accused was a Teacher for 12th standard. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 29.3.2001 at 2.35 p,m., when the accused and P.W.3 went inside one of the Toilet which are situated at the eastern corner of the school. On seeing the accused along with P.W.3, going towards the Toilet, P.W.2 is said to have informed P.W.1, Headmaster about their going towards the toilet and immediately, P.W.1 the Headmaster directed P.Ws.2, 4 and 6 to go to the toilet and see what happens. P.Ws 2, 4 and 6 are said to have brought P.W.3 to P.1's office to whom P.W.3 has narrated that the accused committed unnatural offence by sexually assaulting him by inserting his male organ into his anus and also sucked P.W.3's male organ, as a result of which he suffered pain in his anus. The said complaint of P.W.3 to the Headmaster immediately after the occurrence has not been produced in court. On the other hand the Headmaster P.W.1 has lodged Ex.P.1 complaint at the Police station at 8.00 p.m., on 29.3.2001, based on which, a case was registered and Ex.P.4 FIR was prepared on 31.3.2001. But, there is no explanation on the part of the prosecution as to why the said complaint of P.W.3 to P.W.1, Headmaster immediately after the occurrence was not produced during trial or during investigation. 7. But, there is no explanation on the part of the prosecution as to why the said complaint of P.W.3 to P.W.1, Headmaster immediately after the occurrence was not produced during trial or during investigation. 7. Further, the occurrence has taken place on 29.3.12001 at 2.35 p.m., whereas P.W.1 has lodged the complaint at 8.00 p.m., on the same day. But, the respondent Police did not register the case immediately and P.W.7, who received it and recorded it as a Petition and only on 31.3.2001 after getting the complaint Ex.P.2 from P.W.3, registered a case. But there is no explanation forthcoming for the delay in registering the case based on Ex.P.1 complaint given by P.W.1. 8. In his evidence, P.W.1 has admitted that there was motive between the brother-in-law of the accused one Micheal, an Advocate who has sent petitions against P.W.1 to the Chief Minister's Cell about his studying M.A., and enquiries were conducted by the Government. According to the complainant only due to the above motive, P.W.1 is said to have filed this case by influencing his subordinates, like P.Ws 2,4 and 6 and the student P.W.3. 9. In Ex.P.1 complaint, P.W.1 has stated that he was informed by P.W.3 that the accused is said to have sexually assaulted him twice, whereas in his complaint, Ex.P.2, P.W.3 has not stated so. In Ex.P.2 statement P.W.3 has stated that he suffered pain in his anus and male organ because of the occurrence. But, neither the victim, nor the accused were sent for medical examination. Any injury on the victim or on the accused might be of use as a corroborative evidence for the allegation against the accused. But such evidence is absent and there is no explanation as to why the victim and the accused were not sent for any medical examination. 10. P.W.1 admit that on the next day also the accused attended the School, but no work was allotted to him. If really the accused has committed an offence on the previous day, and escaped from P.W.2,4 and 6 who called him to the Headmaster's office, he would not have been present in the school on the next day, especially when the complaint has been made to the Management and the Police by P.W.1. The conduct of the accused in attending the School on the next morning only substantiates his innocence and not the guilt. 11. The conduct of the accused in attending the School on the next morning only substantiates his innocence and not the guilt. 11. Another important aspect which the trial court and the appellate court have not gone into in detail is as to why P.W.2 suspected the going of P.W.3 and the accused towards the toilet and why should P.W.1 ask P.W.2 to take P.Ws. 4 and 6 to go and see what happens in the toilet. Going to the toilet is a common feature. The time was only 2.35 noon. There are only 12 toilets and urinating places in the south eastern corner of the School. Both students and the teachers have to use the said common toilets. Therefore there is nothing wrong in a student and a teacher going to the toilet meant for students as well as the teachers. Neither P.W.2, nor P.Ws 4 and 6 have seen the occurrence. They have only enquired P.W.3 and on his version they took him to the Headmaster to whom a complaint was said to have been given by P.W.3. But the said complaint has not seen the light of the day. In the above circumstances, there is no explanation as to why P.W.2 suspected the accused and P.W.3 going to toilet and informed the Headmaster, who in turn ordered P.W.2 to take P.Ws 4 and 6 to go to the toilet and see what is happening. 12. The failure to register the case immediately and failure to produce the complaint of P.W.3 given to the Headmaster and failure to send the victim and the accused to medical examination and the conduct of the accused and the previous motive between P.W.1 and the accused would create a doubt on the prosecution case. In a case of this nature, the burden always lies on the prosecution and the benefit of doubt is always awarded in favour of the accused. 13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence as against the accused are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. The fine, if any paid, shall be refunded to the revision petitioner.