JUDGMENT : K.K. Ramakrishnan, J. The appellant/Sole Accused in S.C.No.33 of 2014 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District, has filed this appeal, challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him by virtue of judgment dated 18.07.2014, under Sections 447, 323 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act. 2. The brief facts of the case as follows: 2.1. According to the prosecution, on 29.07.2013, at about 03.45 p.m, when P.W.1 was engaged in agricultural work in her brinjal garden, the appellant trespassed into her brinjal garden and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. Even though she resisted and screamed, he pulled her hand and tore her nighty. Further, he scolded her in filthy language by using her caste name and assaulted her on her cheek and back and also criminally intimated her. Hence, P.W.1 raised alarm. On hearing the alarm of P.W.1, one Chelladurai and Kumar, who were working in the nearby field rushed to the occurrence place. On seeing them, the appellant fled away from the place of occurrence by pushing her down. Then on complaint made in this regard, P.W.8 registered a case in Crime No.250 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 323, 447, 506(i), 354 of IPC, Section 4 of TNPHW Act and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, against the appellant. Thereafter, P.W.11 conducted investigation and filed the final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirunelveli and the same was taken on the file in P.R.C.No.66 of 2013. 2.2.On appearance of the appellant, copies of documents relied by the prosecution were furnished to the accused under section 207 of Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirunelveli, found that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, was triable only by the Sessions Court and committed the case under Section 209(A) of Cr.P.C., to the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. Thereafter, the case was taken on file in Special S.C.No.33 of 2014. Then, he framed the charges for the offences under Section 447, 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (POA) Act and questioned the accused. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial. Then, he framed the charges for the offences under Section 447, 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (POA) Act and questioned the accused. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial. 2.3.To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and exhibited 11 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 and marked 2 material objects as MO.1 and MO.2. Thereafter, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C proceedings after explaining the incriminating evidence against him and he denied the same as false and thereafter, the case was posted for defence evidence. The accused neither produced any documents nor examined any witnesses on their side. 2.4. After considering the material adduced by the prosecution and also hearing the argument of the appellant, the learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty. Hence, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced him as detailed below and acquitted him from the charges under Sections 294(b), 506(i) of IPC 3(1)(x)and 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (POA) Act:- Accused Convicted under Section Sentence of Imprisonment/ fine imposed Sole accused U/s 447 of IPC to undergo 1 month Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 weeks. U/s 323 of IPC to undergo 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 months. U/s 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 months. 3. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the present appeal has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which casts serious doubt over the prosecution case. 4.1. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there was material contradiction in evidence as to the place of the occurrence between the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.7 and P.W.11. P.W.1, in her evidence, deposed that at the time of occurrence, she was engaged in cultivation activities in the agricultural land. Per contra, P.W.11, the Investigating Officer in his evidence, deposed that there was no such cultivation. P.W.1, in her evidence, deposed that at the time of occurrence, she was engaged in cultivation activities in the agricultural land. Per contra, P.W.11, the Investigating Officer in his evidence, deposed that there was no such cultivation. This inconsistent evidence creates doubt about the place of occurrence. 4.2. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there are disparities regarding to the recovery of MO.1, MO.2 and the preparation of athachi. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are relatives of P.W.1 and they reached the occurrence place only after the occurrence. Hence, they cannot be treated as 'eye-witnesses'.But, the prosecution treated them as 'eye-witnesses' to the occurrence. 4.3. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge erronously applied the principle of EJUSDEM GENERIS Principle and convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 447, 323 of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Harassment of Women Act. 4.4. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that when the evidence of the prosecution is disbelieved relating to the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i) of IPC 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (POA) Act, the Sessions Court ought to have acquitted the appellant from the remaining charges also. Hence, he prayed to allow this appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 5.1. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on instructions and upon perusal of the records submitted that the occurrence took place at 03.45 p.m and the FIR was registered at 07.00 p.m and hence, there was no much delay in lodging the complaint as alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant when the Police Station is situated 8 km away from the place of occurrence. Further, there was no challenge about the delay during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. 5.2. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) further submitted that the contradiction relating to the cultivation of brinjal is not material when the medical evidence, Ex.P.2 is available to prove the injuries sustained by P.W.1. 5.3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) further submitted that the contradiction about the recovery of MO.2 is not material. P.W.1 clearly deposed about the factum of torn of clothes. 5.3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) further submitted that the contradiction about the recovery of MO.2 is not material. P.W.1 clearly deposed about the factum of torn of clothes. Further, there is no bar to convict the appellant under Section Section 4 of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Harassment of Women Act when the ingredients of the offence is clearly proved through the evidence of P.W.11 by applying the principle of EJUSDEM GENERIS Principle. 5.4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) further submitted that merely because P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the relatives of P.W.1, it is not a ground to discard their evidence. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge. 6. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 7. P.W.1 deposed that she was resident of South Ariyakulam Village and belongs to SC/ST community and the appellant belongs to Thevar community. On 29.07.2013 at about 03.45 p.m, when P.W.1 was engaged in cultivation activities of brinjal, the accused came there and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. When the same was resisted by her, he repeatedly forced her by pulling her hand and assaulting her on cheek & back and tearing her nighty and blouse. Immediately, P.W.1 raised alarm. Thereafter, the eye-witnesses namely, P.W.3 and P.W.4 rushed to the occurrence place. On seeing them, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. However, P.W.3 and P.W.4 had seen the attempt of sexual assault made by the appellant. The above said evidence of the victim is cogent and trustworthy. Even though, P.W.1 was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing was elicited to disbelieve her evidence. The police officials also recovered the torn clothes, which were marked as MO.1 (Nighty) and MO.2 (blouse). The Doctor was examined as P.W.5. In his evidence, he deposed about the injuries sustained by P.W.1 and the Wound Certificate also was marked as Ex.P.2. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 corroborated with the medical evidence and also supported by the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4. They clearly deposed as follows:- 8. This Court finds no circumstances to disbelieve the above evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 corroborated with the medical evidence and also supported by the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4. They clearly deposed as follows:- 8. This Court finds no circumstances to disbelieve the above evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4. Therefore, the prosecution clearly proved the offence under Sections 323, 447 of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Harassment of Women Act. Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place in P.W.1's land. The accused is said to have trespassed into that land with an intention to commit sexual assault upon her. Therefore, the offence under Sections 323, 447 of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Harassment of Women Act, is clearly made out and the same was proved through the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4 & P.W.5. 9. P.W.5, the Doctor clearly deposed about the injuries sustained by P.W.1 and the Wound Certificate was also marked as Ex.P.2. Hence, the offence under Section 323 of IPC is clearly proved. 10. P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 clearly deposed about the injuries sustained by P.W.1 and also about the torn cloths of P.W.1. To prove the offence committed by the appellant, the above said torn clothes i.e., nighty (MO.1) and blouse (MO.2) of P.W.1 have been produced before the Court. Further, he also specically forced her to have sexual intercourse with him by abusing and assaulting her. Therefore, the offence under Section 4 of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Harassment of Women Act, is clearly proved. 11. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is a delay in lodging the FIR, cannot be accepted by this Court when the occurrence took place at 03.45 p.m on 29.07.2013 in the agricultural field of P.W.1 and the FIR was registered at 07.00 p.m on the same day itself. Further, there was no cross-examination in this aspect and also as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the delay in registering the case in cases of this nature without any serious prejudice, is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1, the injured witness. 12. Further, there was no cross-examination in this aspect and also as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the delay in registering the case in cases of this nature without any serious prejudice, is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1, the injured witness. 12. Another submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the EJUSDEM GENERIS Principle was erroneoulsy been applied by the learned Sessions Judge is concerned, the same also cannot be accepted by this Court when the ingredients for the offence under Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, are independently made out against the appellant from the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4. 13. The further submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that since P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the relatives of P.W.1, they cannot not be treated as eye-witnesses is concerned, the same can be summorily rejected when their evidence clearly corroborate with the other circumstances. 14. P.W.11, the Investigating Officer deposed that there was no cultivation of brinjal and this is not material when the evidence of P.W.1 is clear that she was engaged in cultivation of brinjal at the time of occurrence. Even otherwise, the evidence of P.W.1 is trustworthy and there is no reason to disbelieve her evidence. Apart from that, the appellant has not established his case that he was falsely implicated in this case. 15. Therefore, in all aspects, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves to be rejected and hence, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be confirmed. 16. However, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks indulgence of this Court to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant on the ground that he is suffering many health issues. 17. This Court is unable to accept the same by looking into the background of the case that even prior to the alleged occurrence two or three times the appellant approached her lustfully and PW1 refused to budge to the lust of the appellant. However, he repeatedly forced her and assaulted her by scolding and abusing her. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to reduce the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. 18. However, he repeatedly forced her and assaulted her by scolding and abusing her. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to reduce the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. 18. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District, in S.C.No.33 of 2014 dated 18.07.2014, is hereby confirmed. Bail bond executed by the appellant is hereby cancelled. The learned trial Judge is directed to secure the appellant to undergo the remaining period of sentence.