JUDGMENT : This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellants herein/A.1 and A.2 against the judgment dated 28.09.2018 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, in S.C.No.25 of 2017. 2. Originally, the respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.498 of 2015 against the appellants/A.1 & A.2 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 332, 323, 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Women Harassment Act r/w Section 3 of TNPPDL Act and after completing the investigation, laid charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruppur and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.13 of 2016. After completing the formalities, the case was committed to Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. The learned Principal Sessions Judge after completing the formalities taken the case on file in S.C.No.25 of 2017 and made over the case to II Additional District and Sessions Judge. 3. After completing the formalities, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, had framed charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 294(b), 332, 324 (2 counts) & 506(ii) IPC & Section 4 of Women Harassment Act r/w Section 3 of TNPPDL Act and Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act and Section 4(1)(J) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. 4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, during trial, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 14 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.14 and 14 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P14 and 5 Material Objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.5. 5. 4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, during trial, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 14 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.14 and 14 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P14 and 5 Material Objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.5. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after adverting to the materials placed on record and after hearing both the parties, by judgment dated 28.09.2019, convicted the appellants herein/accused 1 & 2 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 332, 324 (2 counts), 506(ii) of IPC r/w Section 3 of TNPPDL Act r/w Section 4 (1)(J) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced them as follows: Accused Conviction Sentence A1 and A2 Section 294(b) IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for three months each Section 332 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each Section 324 (2 counts) Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for each count for each accused Section 506(ii) IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years each Section 3 of TNPPDL Act Rigorous Imprisonment for three years each with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months each Section 4 of Women Harassment Act Rigorous Imprisonment for three years each Section 4(1)(j) of TNP Act Fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month each A1 Section 185 of M.V. Act Fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month 6. Aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused 1 & 2/appellants have preferred the present criminal appeal before this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants/A.1 & A.2 would submit that the signature of A1 found in Ex.P10-drunkenness certificate is different from Ex.P2-Police Certificate and therefore, the alleged complaint is false. He would further submit that the police notice issued by P.W.3-Sub Inspector of Police contains the name of the accused, whereas, in the accident report, P.W.3 had stated that the injury was caused by two unknown persons, which creates doubt on the investigation agency. He would further submit that the police notice issued by P.W.3-Sub Inspector of Police contains the name of the accused, whereas, in the accident report, P.W.3 had stated that the injury was caused by two unknown persons, which creates doubt on the investigation agency. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that there was a delay in lodging the complaint and further, there was sixteen hours delay in sending the FIR to the Court and Material Objects were dispatched to the Judicial Magistrate on 28.09.2015 along with Mahazar whereas it reached the Court only on 26.02.2016 and though most of the exhibits like Accident Register, Accident Report and Police Notice were received by the Court on 26.11.2015, the drunkenness certificate was not received by the Court at all and these delays were not properly explained by the prosecution. He would further submit that after due discussions and deliberations, the respondent police registered the case and sent to Court. He would further submit that F.I.R. was registered by P.W.13 at 1.30 A.M. and after registration of FIR, both P.W.1 and P.W.2 and accused were sent with police memo whereas P.W.3 and P.W.4 were treated at 1.00 A.M. by P.W.10 in whose certificate both P.W.3 and P.W.4 stated that they were attacked by unknown persons, which is false according to Ex.P2. He would further submit that the appellants had also sustained injuries and the same was not properly explained by the prosecution. 8. He would further submit that only department witnesses were examined and no independent witnesses were examined to prove the case of the prosecution. He would submit that both the police persons came and demanded money from the accused 1 and 2 and since they refused, a false case has been foisted by the police. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Trial Court failed to consider the evidence in proper perspective and simply convicted the appellants/A.1 & A.2 and therefore, the same warrants interference of this Court. 9. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that when P.W.1 to P.W.3 were conducting vehicle checking in the Karkumpalayam Checkpost, the appellants came there in a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-57-AU-7058 in fully drunken state and when the police constables intercepted them and asked them as to whether they consumed alcohol or not, the appellants created problem. He would further submit that since the appellants/A.1 & A.2 have not followed the Motor Vehicle Rules, they were asked to put their signatures in the police notice by P.W.3-Sub Inspector of Police and at that time, the accused 1 and 2 abused and scolded P.W.3 in filthy language and when the first accused was going to sign, the second accused asked him not to sign and when P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 have intercepted, the accused 1 and 2 attacked P.W.'s 1 to 4 with a wooden reaper. 10. He would further submit that when P.W.3 informed the control room over walkie talkie, both the accused 1 and 2 threatened P.W.3 to kill and broken plastic chairs, tube light, torch light and paper weight in the check-post and on seeking the highway patrol vehicle, they tried to escape, by which time, they fell and sustained injuries and finally, they were caught by the police and immediately, the complaint was lodged by P.W.1 and there is no delay in lodging the complaint. He would further submit that due to the alleged dispute, the first accused had purposefully signed in a different manner. Further, they examined P.W.5, who is the independent witness and not department witness, which corroborates the evidence of P.W.'s1 to,4. He would further submit that the evidence of Doctor- P.W.10 also corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the injured witnesses were produced, admitted and taken the treatment and therefore, the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that the trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated supra and hence the same does not warrant any interference. 11. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 12. The case of the prosecution is that, on 28.09.2015, at about 00.15 hours, when the Women Sub-Inspector of Police, Perumanallur Police Station, along with other women Police personnel of Kunnathur Police Station, were involved in regular vehicle check-up at Kanakkampalayam Check Post, they intercepted a two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-57-AV-7058, in which, the accused 1 and 2 came travelling in an inebriated state. When the Police questioned them and attempted to book a case, both the accused replied in a filthy language and also started assaulting the women police personnel with a wooden reaper and caused simple injuries, and also caused damages to the furnitures in the check-post. When the Police questioned them and attempted to book a case, both the accused replied in a filthy language and also started assaulting the women police personnel with a wooden reaper and caused simple injuries, and also caused damages to the furnitures in the check-post. Therefore, the respondent police registered a case against the accused/appellants in Crime No.498 of 2015 for the offences stated supra. 13. After completing the investigation, the respondent police filed a final report in P.R.C.No.13 of 2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruppur. After completing the formalities, since the offences are triable by Court of Session, the case was committed to the Court of Session and the case was taken on file by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in S.C.No.25 of 2017 and was made over to the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruppur,. 14. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused/appellants as stated above. When questioned, the appellants pleaded “not guilty”. 15. In order to prove the case of the prosecution before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution as many as 14 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.14 and 14 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P14 and five material objects were exhibited. On the side of the defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 16. After completing trial and hearing arguments advanced on either side, the learned Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 28.09.2018 in S.C.No.25 of 2017, convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. 17. This Court, being an Appellate Court, is a final Court of fact finding, which has to necessarily re-appreciate the entire evidence and give an independent finding. 18. In order to prove the case of the prosecution 14 witnesses were examined on the side of prosecution, out of which, P.W.'s1 & 2 are police constables and injured witnesses, other injured witnesses, P.W.3- Sub Inspector of Police and P.W.4, who is a friend of police. 18. In order to prove the case of the prosecution 14 witnesses were examined on the side of prosecution, out of which, P.W.'s1 & 2 are police constables and injured witnesses, other injured witnesses, P.W.3- Sub Inspector of Police and P.W.4, who is a friend of police. They deposed that the appellants came by a two wheeler and since they have not followed the Motor Vehicle Rules and they have consumed the alcohol, for which P.W.3 asked them to sign in the police notice, for which A1 used filthy words on them and further A2 asked A1 not to sign in the police notice and thereafter, attacked the injured witnesses with wooden reaper and as a result of which, the case was registered against the appellants/accused 1 & 2. 19. Though the learned counsel for the appellant/accused 1 & 2 submitted that the signatures found in Ex.P1 differs, but the victims stated that since the appellants were in the drunken mood and they refused to sign but subsequently signed and purposefully signed in different form. 20. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants also sustained injures and the same was not explained by the prosecution, the prosecution had explained that while the appellants tried to escape from the scene of occurrence, they sustained injury. 21. Though the learned counsel for the appellants stated that in the police notice, the name of the first accused was mentioned, whereas in the accident register-Ex.P6, it was mentioned that two unknown persons were attacked them and if the victims were sure that the appellants only have committed the offence, they could have very well mentioned the same in the accident register, which was issued subsequent to the police notice. It has to be observed that the presence of the accused at the time of occurrence is not disputed and even a defence was raised that the police officials demanded bribe amount from the accused and since they refused to give the same, a false case was foisted against the accused 1 and 2. Therefore, since the appellants admitted their presence at the time of occurrence, it cannot be stated that the appellants had not committed the alleged offences. 22. Therefore, since the appellants admitted their presence at the time of occurrence, it cannot be stated that the appellants had not committed the alleged offences. 22. Further, a careful perusal of Exs.P.10 and 11-Drunkenness certificate shows that no date has been mentioned and the said fact was admitted by P.W.12-Doctor Govendan, during his cross-examination. A combined reading of the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 and also P.W.12 and the documentary evidence Ex.P2 and Ex.P6, which creates doubt about the occurrence as to whether the alleged occurrence has taken place as projected by the prosecution. However, the appellants themselves in their cross- examination have admitted their presence in the place of occurrence by way of suggestion before P.W.4. 24. Further, on considering the overall evidence on record and considering the submissions made on either side, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt under Section 506 (i) I.P.C. However, the victims are lady police officials and they have to be respected, the appellants failed to do so and threatened them in an inebriated mood. Therefore the offence falls not under 506 (i) I.P.C., but falls under 506 (ii) I.P.C. 25. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the appellants/A.1 and A.2 have no previous cases and also considering the age of the appellants and the occurrence took place only during the drunken mood, the conviction is confirmed and sentences alone are modified as follows: (i) From seven years rigorous imprisonment to two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. (ii) From three years rigorous imprisonment to two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act. 26. Except the above modifications, the rest of the sentences imposed on the appellants stands confirmed. 27. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed with the above modifications. The suspension of sentence already granted by this Court dated 11.02.2020 in Crl.M.P.No.795 of 2020 in Crl.A.No.32 of 2020 stands cancelled. The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the appellants/A.1 & A.2 to undergo the remaining period of sentence.