Judgment 1. This criminal Appeal is filed against the judgement dated 4. 2002 passed in SC. No. 39/2001 by the learned Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam, convicting and sentencing the Appellant for the offence under Section 354 of IPC to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months and acquitting him from the charges under Section 3(1) (xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:- a. PW. 1 Madhan is the husband of the victim PW. 2 Narayani. On 1. 2000 at about 12.00 hours, when the victim was returning along with her friend PW. 4 Thangamni from Kozhikoli to Mundakkunnu on a shortcut route, the Appellant/accused outraged her by pulling her hands and threatened her not to tell it to any body. Thereafter, the victim came to her house and PW. 1 on seeing the victim crying enquired her and the victim explained the said occurrence. PW. 1 told about the said occurrence to the Villages Nataraj and veeraiha and also to the Panchayat President. Thereafter, PW. 1 along with the Villagers went to the Devala Police Station and gave the complaint Ex. P1. b. on receipt of Ex. P1, PW. 6 the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the said Police station, registered a case in Cr. No. 2/2000 under sections 354 and 506 (ii) of IPC and prepared Ex. P4 printed FIR and took up the case for investigation and went to the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar Ex. P3 and a rough sketch Ex.P5 in the presence of the witnesses Natarajan and Veeraiah and sent Ex. P6 requisition to PW. 3 District Backward Classes Officer. On receipt of Ex. P6, PW. 3 he gave community certificate Ex. P2 that PW.1 and the victim belonged to the SC/ST community and the accused belong to OC community. PW. 6 after enquiring the accused and considering the community of the victim and the Appellant, altered the case into one under Section 354 of IPC and 3(1) (xi) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and prepared Ex. P6 FIR alteration report and sent the same to PW. 7 the Deputy Superintendent of Police. On 11. 2000 PW. 6 arrested the accused at Puliamparai and sent him for judicial custody. PW. 7 sent the case file to PW. P6 FIR alteration report and sent the same to PW. 7 the Deputy Superintendent of Police. On 11. 2000 PW. 6 arrested the accused at Puliamparai and sent him for judicial custody. PW. 7 sent the case file to PW. 8 for further investigation and PW. 8 after completing investigation filed a final report against the accused under Sections 354 of IPC and 3(1) (xi) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. 3. The case was taken on file in SC No. 39/2001 on the file of the learned Sessions judge, Uthagamandalam and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses (PW. 1 to PW. 8) and also relied on Exs. P1 to P6. 4. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused denied the same as totally false. 5. The court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and looking into the materials available, found the accused/appellant guilty and awarded punishments as referred to above, which is challenged in this criminal Appeal. 6. This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the material records placed. 7. Mr. S. Sathia Chandran, the learned counsel for the Appellant strenuously contended that the evidence available on record amply proved the false implication of the Appellant in order to escape from the action taken by the Appellant, who was assaulted by PW. 1 the husband of the victim and one kongan Naicker, a friend of PW. 1 and was seriously injured and took treatment for about 10 days as an inpatient. The learned counsel submitted that the occurrence had not taken place as spoken to by the witnesses and the material contradiction and discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution clearly disproved the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel pointed out to the material discrepancy and contradiction in the evidence of PW. 2 and 4 regarding the place of occurrence. 8. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor supported the judgment of the Trial Court and submitted that the contradictions does not go into the root of the matter and the same cannot be taken into consideration while appreciating the evidence of PW. 2 and 4 regarding the place of occurrence. 8. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor supported the judgment of the Trial Court and submitted that the contradictions does not go into the root of the matter and the same cannot be taken into consideration while appreciating the evidence of PW. 2 and 4 who are rustic women and come from the downtrodden family. 9. According to the prosecution, on 1. 2000 at abut 12.00 noon, PW. 2 was returning home along with PW. 4 her relative and daughter of kongam Naicker, from kozhikoli to Mundakkunnu Village after purchasing grocery from the shop of the Appellant and at that time, the Appellant obstructed PW. 2 and pulled her right hand. As a result, she felt ashamed and shouted. PW. 4 ran away from there out of fear. After coming home, she reported the matter to her husband at about 4.00 p.m. when he returned from his work of collection of honey in the forest. 10. Even according to PW. 2, the Appellant only pulled her right hand and tried to misbehave with her (Tamil) and she shouted and the Appellant threatened her not to disclose to any one and ran away from the place. Whereas PW. 4 Thangamani stated that the Appellant came there, pulled her by hand and dragged her to the forest and she was not aware as to what happened to PW. 2 thereafter. The improvement made by PW. 4 is a clear embellishment, as it is not the case of the victim that she was dragged inside the forest by the Appellant. It is no doubt true that the discrepancy in the evidence of rustic woman cannot be discarded, but when there is substantial discrepancy in their evidence, even regarding main overtact of the Appellant, it cannot be brushed aside, that too, in the light of the admission made by PW. 1 and 2 that PW. 1 and Kongan Naicker assaulted the Appellant and caused grievous injuries. 11. PW. 1 and 2 that PW. 1 and Kongan Naicker assaulted the Appellant and caused grievous injuries. 11. PW. 1 had deposed that the incident wherein the Appellant was attacked occurred at 6.00 a.m. in the morning, whereas PW.2 would state in the cross examination that she knows about the quarrel between her husband and the Appellant, which occurred at 6.00 p.m. PW.6 the investigating officer has stated that the Appellant sustained injury in the quarrel occurred between him and PW.1 during investigation of the case and the Appellant was admitted in the hospital till 11. 2000. 12. Though the present occurrence had occurred at 12.00 hours on 1. 2000, the complaint was lodged only on 1. 2000 at 23.30 hours. The evidence indicated that PW.1 returned from his work on 1. 2000 at 4.00 p.m., but the complaint was given only at 11.30 p.m. PW.1 admitted that he discussed with his friend Kongan Naicker and others, who belong to his SC community and gave the complaint. If they had quarreled with the Appellant, the next day morning i.e. 1. 2000 and injured him, then the explanation given by him for not giving the complaint immediately out of fear of the Appellant cannot be accepted, as it is PW.1 and his friends who had attacked the Appellant. It is the specific defence of the Appellant that PW.2 got provision from the grocery shop of the Appellant and tried to cheat him, which resulted in altercation and he was attacked by PW.1 and his group and in order to escape from being arrested, after due deliberation with his community men, he had given the complaint against the Appellant and that is why there is a delay of about one day and Eleven hours in lodging the complaint. 13. In special circumstances, delay in lodging the FIR quite often results in embellishment, which is created after thought, on account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, but also danger of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story would creep in as a result of deliberation and consultation. In the present case, the explanation for the delay given by PW.1 is not satisfactory and there is a clear embellishment in the version of the prosecution scrutinized in the light of evidence given by the prosecution. In the present case, the explanation for the delay given by PW.1 is not satisfactory and there is a clear embellishment in the version of the prosecution scrutinized in the light of evidence given by the prosecution. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW.1 and 2 and in the back ground of the facts in this case, it is clearly seen that the prosecution story was conceived and constructed after a good deal of deliberation and delay in shady setting thus susceptible to doubt and suspicion of the case of the prosecution. 14. Another significant factor and material factor which falsified the case of the prosecution is the discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecution regarding the place of occurrence. PW.2, the victim stated that to reach her home situated in Mundakannu from Kozhikoli, it is not necessary to go though puliamparai and if they go through puliamparai, they cannot reach their home, as it leads to some other place. PW.4 also admits the same in her evidence. It is the case of the prosecution that the occurrence took place in between kozhikoli and Mundakkunnu. PW.6 the investigating officer has stated in observation mahazar and the rough plan that he had shown the place of occurrence at the shortcut route of Mundakkannu and kozhikoli-But, there is no such shortcut route to go to Mundakkannu and it is categorically admitted by PW.2 and 4 that one cannot reach their home if they go by that route. It is relevant to refer to the evidence of PW. 2 and PW. 4 in that regard. 15. PW. 2 states as follows:- (Language Tamil) And PW. 4 also would state as follows:- (Language Tamil) 16. Therefore, it is evident that there is a serious discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecution relating to the place of occurrence, which not only belies the evidence of PW. 1 and PW. 4, but also falsifies the case of the prosecution. 17. For the reasons stated above, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove case against the Appellant and the Trial Court erroneously imposed the conviction and sentence on the Appellant and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 18. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant in SC. 18. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant in SC. No. 39/2001 by the Trial Court is set aside and the Appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. It is seen from the records that the Appellant had been released on bail by this court. Hence, the bail bond if any executed by the Appellant shall stand terminated and the fine amount if any paid by the Appellant shall be refunded to him.