VINCENT PAUL Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.