JUDGMENT This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.03.2002 in SC NO.8 of 2000 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge to try the cases under SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, wl1erein, the appellant herein-accused was found guilty of the offence under section 354 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the records. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.01.1999 while the de-facto complainant N.Nagarathnam-PW.1 along with her son Ravikumar-PW.2 was attending to onion plantation in her fields, at about 11 a.m. the accused came to her and expressed his desire to have sex with her and when PW.1 refused to oblige him, the accused grew wild and attacked PW.1. He also abused her in the name of her caste i.e., 'mala' and caught hold of her tuft and dragged her on to the floor and outraged her modesty. When PW.2 intervened, the accused pushed him away and after little struggle, PW.1 escaped from the clutches of the accused. Immediately thereafter, PWs.1 and 2 went to the village centre and informed PW.3-Gandham Venkataramana and Gulla Chinna Appalakonda-L W .3. The accused who came there, threatened PW.1 with dire consequences. On the same night at 9 p.m. PW.1 gave a report Ex. P.1, which was registered by PW.6-Head Constable of Nathavaram PS as FIR EX.P.3 in Cr.No.1 of 1999 under Section 3(x), 3(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'). During the course of investigation, PW.6-Sub Inspector of Police, inspected the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch Ex.P.4 and examined witnesses and arrested the accused on 11.01.1999. After completion of the investigation, PW.7 -Sub Divisional Police Officer, Narsipatnam, verified the investigation and filed charge sheet. PW A-Mandai Revenue Officer, Nathavaram issued caste certificate EX.P.2 to the effect that PW.1 belongs to 'SC - Mala' community. 4. The accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty to the charge under Section 3(x) and 3(xi) of the Act. In support of their case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4. The accused examined himself as OW.1 and marked Exs.0.1 and 0.2. 4. The accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty to the charge under Section 3(x) and 3(xi) of the Act. In support of their case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4. The accused examined himself as OW.1 and marked Exs.0.1 and 0.2. Subsequently, the learned Public Prosecutor filed a memo requesting the Court to frame an alternative charge under Section 3541PC. The learned Sessions Judge, allowed Cri. M.P. No. A 95 0f 20010n23.10.2001 to frame alternative charge under Section 354 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred CrI.R.P.1435 of 2001 and this court dismissed the same on 13.12.2001. Thereafter the accused pleaded not guilty to the alternative charge. At the request of the accused, PWs.1, 2 and 6 were recalled for further examination. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 3(x) and 3(xi) of the Act and acquitted him thereof on the ground that the investigation was not conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is competent officer to conduct the investigation in such cases as per Rule 7 of the S.C. and the S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 3541 PC and convicted him for the same and imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed the present appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant accused would mainly contend that the learned Sessions Judge having found the accused not guilty of the offence under section 3(x) and 3(xi) of the Act, erred in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 354 IPC on the same set of facts and circumstances. I n that regard, he relied upon a decision in 'Kuriminelli Chinna v. State of A.P.,1' wherein, this Court held that 'when once a charge is framed under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST Act, it includes the applicability of Section 354 IPC and the accused shall not be prosecuted for the offence under section 354 IPC, in cases where Section 3(1)(xi) is invoked', 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State would on the other hand contend that the two offences are distinct and separate and the charge under Section 354 IPC was framed only as an alternative to the charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act, but not together with the same and in the event of finding not guilty of the main charge for any reason, the Court is certainly competent to find the accused guilty of the alternative charge when the offence is made out by the evidence available on record. 9. The allegation against the accused is that on 08.01.1999 at about 11 a.m. while PW.1 along with her minor son, aged 11 years, was attending to work in her fields, the accused approached her and expressed sexual desire and when PW.1 refused to oblige him, the accused attacked her and abused her in the name of her caste, caught hold of her tuft and dragged her on the floor and thereby outraged her modesty and when PW.2 intervened, the accused pushed him away. The prosecution relies upon the testimony of PWs.1 and 2 to prove the offence. PW.1 testified in categorical terms as to the way in which the accused out raged her modesty. She further deposed that when her son PW.2 tried to interfere, the accused threw him out and PW.1 escaped from the clutches of the accused by pushing him aside. It is also in her evidence that immediately thereafter herself and her son came to the village weeping and on the way, they met PW.3 and one G. Chinna Appalakonda-LW.3 to whom they narrated the incident. The testimony of PW.1 is not discredited at all in the cross-examination. Her testimony is corroborated by PW.2 on all material aspects. PW.2 was a boy aged 11 years by the date of occurrence, having sufficient capacity to understand and comprehend. There is absolutely no reason as to why PW.2 should give any false evidence. Being a child witness, his evidence, which is free from any infirmity, is certainly entitled for due weight and credence. PW.3 of course, was not a witness to the occurrence, but his evidence would go to show that on that day, PWs.1 and 2 were coming to the village and the accused abused them and he chastised the accused for abusing PW.1. 10. PW.3 of course, was not a witness to the occurrence, but his evidence would go to show that on that day, PWs.1 and 2 were coming to the village and the accused abused them and he chastised the accused for abusing PW.1. 10. It is to be noted that the complaint EX.P.1 was given by PW.1 on the same night at about 9 p.m. as can be seen from the evidenceofPW.1 and Head Consable-PW.5, who issued FIR EX.P.3. Having regard to the nature of the offence and also the fact that the victim woman PW.1 who belongs to harijan community is an illiterate, it cannot be said that there was any delay in giving the complaint EX.P.1, which was in fact given within ~2 hours from the time of the occurrence. In EX.P.1 itself PW.1 has specifically stated as to the overt acts of the accused and also referred to the futile intervention of PW.2. The fact that EX.P.1 does not refer to PW.1 informing PW.3 and LW.3 about the incident and PW.3 chastising the accused, is not of any consequence, as PW.3 was admittedly not a witness to the occurrence. PW.1 informing PW.3 and LW.3 about the incident is a subsequent event that took place while PWs.1 and 2 were returning to the village after the incident. Thus, it is not a case where the name of any direct witness to the occurrence is omitted in the complaint Ex.P .1. It is well settled that FIR is intended to set the criminal law into motion and it need not contain the details of all the events, which have taken place subsequent to the occurrence. In the present case, the complaint EX.P.1 makes a specific allegation against the accused attracting the ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC and also referred to the presence of PW.2 and his futile effort to come to the rescue of his mother. The contents of EX.P.1 fully corroborated the testimony of PW.1, which is further corroborated by the evidence of PW.2. The fact that PW.2 is a son of PW.1 does not render his testimony liable for rejection on the ground of relationship. The contents of EX.P.1 fully corroborated the testimony of PW.1, which is further corroborated by the evidence of PW.2. The fact that PW.2 is a son of PW.1 does not render his testimony liable for rejection on the ground of relationship. Being the son of PW.1, he is a natural witness and his presence at the time and place of the occurrence, cannot be doubted, as the children accompanying the parents for attending to the agricultural work is a common phenomenon in the rural scenario. 11. The only discrepancy pointed out in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is that PW.1 stated that the report EX.P.1 was get drafted at the police station by some one, whereas PW.2 stated that he drafted the report to the dictation of his mother. According to PW.5Head Constable, PW.1 came to the police station and presented report EX.P.1. When once the contents of Ex. P.1 are found to corroborate the testimony ofPWs.1 and 2, the fact as to who drafted EX.P.1 is not of much consequence, as PWs.1 and 2 being illiterate villagers belonging to harijan community, they have to necessarily seek the help of some one to get the report drafted. The discrepancy pointed out does not go to the root of the prosecution case. The testimony of PWs.1 and 2 being mutually cogent and consistent, on all material facts, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly placed reliance thereon. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant accused would point out that admittedly PW.1 has not sustained any injuries not even scratches, though she is said to have been thrown on the ground. The absence of any injuries on the person of the prosecutrix does not necessarily disprove the case of the prosecution. Incurring of injuries depends on variety of factors including the force used against the victim by the accused, the terrain of surface on which the victim happens to fall. It is not the case of the prosecution that the victim was dragged on the rough surface of the field. According to PWs.1 and 2, the accused caught hold of the tuft of hair and dragged her towards bund in an attempt to outrage her modesty when she refused to his lustful desire. The absence of the injuries on the person of PW.1 is therefore not of much consequence in the present case. 13. According to PWs.1 and 2, the accused caught hold of the tuft of hair and dragged her towards bund in an attempt to outrage her modesty when she refused to his lustful desire. The absence of the injuries on the person of PW.1 is therefore not of much consequence in the present case. 13. It is suggested to PW.1 in the cross examination that there is a dispute between the accused and PW.1's father regarding the right of passage to reach the land of the accused and therefore PW.1 gave a false complaint. PW.1 denied the suggestion and stated that she has nothing to do with the alleged dispute between the accused and her father. PW.4-Mandal Revenue Officer was examined to prove the fact that PW.1 belongs to 'mala' community According to him, he issued EX.P.2-caste certificate after due enquiry. In the cross-examination of PWA, it was elicited that his predecessor in office demarcated 22 ft. width of passage to reach the lands of the accused. After receiving a complaint sent by the accused to the Legal Services Authority alleging obstructions, PWA inspected the land and found the passage intact and there were no quarrels between the parties. He further stated that he chastised the accused for sending false complaint. It is in the evidence of PWA that the accused and PW.1 's father were both given government lands and the accused has to reach his field by going along side of the lands of PW.1 's father. The evidence of PWA who is responsible revenue official would disclose that a passage of 22 ft. width was demarcated providing access for the accused to reach his lands, but still the accused was indulging in sending false complaints alleging obstruction to his passage and on receiving one such complaint through Legal Services Authority, PW A inspected the land and found passage to be intact and that he even chastised the accused for sending false complaints. The motive alleged by the accused for giving complaint Ex.P.1 is thus falsified by the testimony of PWA. it cannot for a moment be believed that even assuming that there was any dispute regarding passage, PW.1 would resort to giving such a complaint involving her own esteem and honour and would further go to the extent of citing her Son PW.2 as a witness for the same. it cannot for a moment be believed that even assuming that there was any dispute regarding passage, PW.1 would resort to giving such a complaint involving her own esteem and honour and would further go to the extent of citing her Son PW.2 as a witness for the same. The evidence on record would clearly establish the overt acts against the accused that would satisfy the ingredients of Section 3541PC. The learned Sessions Judge has on proper appreciation of the evidence on record rightly held the accused guilty of the offence under section 354 IPC. 14. The question which then arises for consideration is whether the finding of the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Act would render Section 3541PC inapplicable? 15. It is to be noted that the accused was found not guilty of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Act not on the ground that the offence as such was not made out, but only on the ground that the investigation was not conducted by an Officer of the rank of Sub Divisional Police Officer, as required under the Rules. In the present case, the investigation was admittedly conducted by PW.6-Sub Inspector of Police. PW.7-Sub Divisional Police Officer merely verified the investigation and filed charge sheet. Admittedly, PW.7 has not conducted the investigation. As there was a clear violation of the mandatory requirement under the statute, the learned Sessions Judge rightly held that the accused cannot be punished for the offence under the provisions of SC & ST (POA) Act, relying upon the decision in 'State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gita Ram2'. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the alternative charge under Section 354 IPC. In the above case, the apex Court reiterated the dictum laid down in 'Gangula Ashok v. State of A.P.3', wherein, it was held that 'particular Court of Session, even after being specified as a Special Court, would continue to be essentially a Court of Session and designation of it as Special Court would not denude it of its character or even powers as a Court of Session'. The trial Court in the present case continued to be a Court of Session Le., Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, in spite of its designation as Special Court for trial of offences under SC & ST (POA) Act. The trial Court in the present case continued to be a Court of Session Le., Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, in spite of its designation as Special Court for trial of offences under SC & ST (POA) Act. The position of the trial Court as a Court of Session to try the offences under Section 354 IPC is therefore not ousted, simply because, it happened to be designated as a Special Court for trial of offences under SC & ST (POA) Act. 16. It is further to be noted that the charge under Section 354 IPC was framed as an alternative charge, but not as additional charge. In fact, alternative charge under Section 354 I PC was framed after evidence was recorded and on an application filed by the prosecution in CrI.M.P.No.4950f2001. After hearing both sides, the said application was allowed by the trial Court on 23.10.2001 and aggrieved by the same, the accused filed revision i.e., Crl.R.P.No.1435 of 2001 and this Court by order dated 13.12.2001 dismissed the said revision petition. Thus the order passed by the trial Court permitting framing of an alternative charge under Section 354 IPC has become final. It is therefore not a case where two separate charges are framed parallel to one another based on the same set of facts and circumstances. The decision in 'Kurimine/liChinna's case (first supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-accused is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that in the said case, the learned Sessions Judge framed a charge under section 354 IPC and also additional charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act. It was therefore a case of framing additional charge but not alternative charge. The learned Sessions Judge in the above case found the accused guilty of the accused for both the offences and convicted him for both and also imposed separate sentences in respect of both the offences. This Court, therefore, held that the accused therein can be found guilty only for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST (POA) Act, as the victim belongs to scheduled caste and accordingly confirmed the conviction and sentence in respect thereof while acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 354 IPC. This Court, therefore, held that the accused therein can be found guilty only for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST (POA) Act, as the victim belongs to scheduled caste and accordingly confirmed the conviction and sentence in respect thereof while acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 354 IPC. Such a situation does not arise in the present case, as the charge under Section 354 IPC was framed only as an alternative charge and the accused was convicted for the same. as the ingredents of the said offence have been made out against the accused by the evidence available on record and in view of the competency of the trial Court to convict the accused for the said offence, as the trial Court continued to be a Court of Session. It is therefore not a case where the accused is sought to be punished for two offences arising out of the same set of facts and circumstances. In fact, in the above I decision also, it is noted that both the offences are distinct and separate. The proposition that additional charge under Section 3541 PC does not lie along side the charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST (POA) Act is not disputed, but there is no bar to frame an alternative charge under Section 3541 PC and convict the accused when the said offence is i made out and when the main charge fails for some reason or other. 17. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned judgment of the trial Court finding the appellant-accused guilty of the offence under Section 354 I PC and convicting him for the same is not liable to be interfered with, as the same does not suffer from any infirmities, legal or factual, and on the other hand, is based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. The sentence of imprisonment for two years awarded by the trial Court being minimum sentence that can be imposed for the said offence under the proviso to Section 3541 PC as amended by Act 6 of 1991 in the State of Andhra Pradesh, also does not call for any interference. There are no merits in the appeal. 18. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. The trial Court shall issue necessary warrant against the accused for serving the remaining part of the sentence.