P. Bhavadasan, J.

1. The accused in this case was prosecuted for the offence punishable u/s 376 of IPC initially along with another accused also who during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court died. Therefore, the first accused alone stood trial. He was found guilty of the offence u/s 376 and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default of payment of which he had to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. PW 1 is the victim in this case and PW 2 is her mother. According to the prosecution allegation, while the victim was studying in the 6th standard, on a Friday, the first accused is alleged to have caught hold of her and ravished her. It is further alleged that this sexual assault was repeated on several subsequent occasions taking the victim to various places. The victim would also say that when she was studying in the 7th standard, on a particular day she and her friend Mufeedha while returning from school had gone to the house of one Ahammed, to take water. Mufeedha left the house after taking water and the victim remained there. The allegation is that the second accused who is no more, ravished her. He too is alleged to have repeated the acts on several subsequent occasions. Ultimately, when the victim felt severe abdominal pain, she conveyed the news to her mother.

2. PW 1 laid Ext. P1, First Information Statement. That was recorded by PW 12 who registered crime as per Ext. P1 (a) FIR. Investigation was taken over by PW 13. He prepared scene mahazars of the places where the incidents were alleged to have taken place. He had the victim sent for medical examination. PW 8, the doctor examined PW 1 and issued Ext. P7 certificate. PW 13 collected the extract of the school register from the school where the victim had studied last. He recorded statements of witnesses, completed investigation and laid charge before the Court.

3. The Court before which the charge was laid took cognizance of the offence. Finding that the offence is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, committed the case to Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The said Court made over the case to Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track (Ad Hoc-I), Kozhikode for trial and disposal.

4. The said Court on receipt of records and on appearance of the first accused, framed charges for the offence punishable u/s 376 of IPC. To the charge, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution therefore examined PWs 1 to 13 and had Exts. P1 to P14 marked.

5. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C.. He denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him and maintained that he is innocent. He denied of having committed any act as alleged. He also stated that there was exchange of words between him and PW 2 which made PW 2 bitter towards him and that in order to wreak vengeance PW 1 has been utilized to foist a false case on him. He pointed out that he had not even touched the little girl at any point of time. Finding that the accused could not be acquitted u/s 232 of Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence. He chose to adduce no evidence.

6. The Trial Court mainly relying upon the evidence of PW 1 coupled with the evidence of the doctor namely PW 8 and Ext. P7, found that the offence has been established as against the first accused. Therefore, convicted and sentenced him as already mentioned.

7. The accused has preferred this appeal from jail. Smt. M.R. Jayalatha was appointed as State Brief to appear on behalf of the appellant. In her well prepared and well presented arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant appointed as State Brief pointed out that the Court below has omitted to note certain vital aspects which would make the version given by PW 1 open to serious doubt and it could not be said that the evidence of PW 1 is cogent and convincing