IMPORTANT POINT
Rape – Consent of minor has no legal sanctity.

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.01.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Tiruppur in Spl.S.C.No.14 of 2017.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim, who was aged about 17 years, was working as an Assistant Tailor at Anitha stitching centre. The accused/appellant was also working in the same stitching centre. On 05.05.2014, the victim went to the stitching centre for attending the work at about 8.30 a.m the victim stated to her parents that she was not doing well and that she is going to her house. At the same time, the accused also went out from the stitching centre. Thereafter, the accused kidnapped the minor victim girl from the lawful guardians from Tiruppur to Amurdhahalli, Bangalore in train and forcefully married her and both were residing in a rented house at Bangalore near the house of P.W.5 one Nagamani. Both the accused and the victim resided at Bangalore for about 76 days i.e. from 05.05.2014 to 19.07.2014 and at that time the accused forcefully had sexual intercourse with the minor victim several times. Further, the accused is a non-member of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes Community and the victim girl belongs to Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes Community, thereby, the offence committed by the appellant falls under Sections 363, 344 IPC and Sections 3 r/w 4 and 5(l) r/w 6 of ‘The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012’ [hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’ for the sake of convenience] and Sections 3(1)(r)(w)(i) r/w 3(2)(Va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, [hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST Act’].

3. On the complaint given by the de-facto complainant/P.W.1, the respondent/Police registered a case in Crime No.624 of 2014 as ‘girl missing’. After investigation, the respondent/Police filed alteration reports before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur against the appellant for the offences under Section girl missing @ 366(A) IPC @ 3(1)(r)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Sections 366-A and 376 IPC. Thereafter, the respondent/Police laid a charge sheet before the learned Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur for the offences under Sections 366 and 344 IPC and Section 5(1) which is punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(w)(i) and 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act and the same was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.14 of 2017. When questioned, the accused denied the allegation. However, based on the materials, the trial Court framed

the aforementioned charges against the appellant.

4. In order to prove its case before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and 16 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P16.

5. After examining the prosecution witnesses, the incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put before the accused and he was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he had denied all the incriminating circumstances as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral evidence was adduced and no documentary evidence was produced.

6.1 The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the materials available on record, found that the appellant is guilty of the offences under Section 366 IPC and Section 5(1) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(w)(i) r/w 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act and he was convicted and sentenced as follows:—

(i) for the conviction under Section 366 IPC he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year;

(ii) for the conviction under Section 5(l) which is punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment f