Point of law : Powers u/s 397 r/w with S.401 of Cr.P.C. are inherent in nature to correct the judgments and the orders of the courts below which suffer from gross illegality or jurisdictional error.

ORDER :

1. The accused is the revision petitioner. He challenges concurrent findings of guilt u/s 376 of IPC against him.

2. The victim and her mother, both illiterate, were residing at their residential house situated at Puliyamkulam, Parappa Village. Both of them were working as a coolie at a nearby quarry. The accused was working at a furniture shop situated near to the house of the victim. Admittedly the victim and the accused got acquainted and they fell in love eventually. They decided to marry. The prosecution allegation is that, one day in the third week of December 2009, at 11.00 p.m. the accused went to the house of the victim, had sex with her and made her pregnant on false promise of marriage.

3. The Vellarikkundu police registered crime against the accused on the basis of the First Information Statement (Ext.P1) given by the victim after three months of the alleged incident. After hearing both sides, the trial Court framed charge against the accused u/s 376 of IPC. He pleaded not guilty. After trial, the trial Court found the accused guilty u/s 376 of IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. In appeal, the appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. The conviction was based mainly on the oral testimonies of the victim and her mother who were examined as PWs. 1 and 2 respectively.

4. As the revision petitioner was not represented by his own lawyer, Smt. Sherly S.A. was appointed as the Legal Aid Counsel. I heard the learned Legal Aid Counsel as well as the learned Public Prosecutor Sri. Sanal P. Raj.

5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner impeached the findings of the courts below on appreciation of evidence and resultant finding as to the guilt. The learned counsel submitted that even if the prosecution case is believed in its entirety, still on the basis of the material brought on record by the prosecution, offence under S.376 of IPC is not made out against the accused. The counsel further submitted that there is no cogent and reliable evidence to show that the accused committed rape on the victim as alleged by the prosecution. The courts below committed serious illegality in convicting the accused, submitted the counsel. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the findings and verdict handed down by the courts below and argued that necessary ingredients of S.376 of IPC had been established and the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.

6. The testimony of PW-1 and the statement of the accused given u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. would show that the victim and the accused got acquainted, their friendship blossomed eventually and they fell in love with the knowledge of PW-2. It is also not in dispute that subsequently, the accused proposed the victim and they decided to marry. According to the prosecution, the accused withdrew from the marriage proposal unilaterally after satisfying his sexual lust on the fateful day, while according to the defence, the victim and her mother withdrew from the marriage proposal since the accused failed to return gold chain borrowed by him from the victim for pledging.

7. PW-2 narrated the circumstances which led to the close acquaintance of PW-1 with the accused. According to her, the accused was a frequent visitor to her house, pretended love for PW-1 and expressed desire to marry her. She deposed that the accused made her believe that his relatives would officially come and meet her with the marriage proposal. She further stated that thereafter the accused impregnated the victim which she came to know only when the victim was taken to a doctor due to vomiting. PW-1 deposed that on the alleged day and time of the incident, the accused came to her house and knocked at the door. When she opened the door, the accused entered the room, hugged and impregnated her. The only incriminating part in the test