The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of clear and cogent evidence to prove forcible penetration for the offence of rape, and the reliance on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix for conviction.

1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Sec.376 IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months imprisonment.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

P.W.1 Tmt.Subha and her husband Sivanesan are residing at Door No.11-A, Shanmugapuram, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai. They have 3 female children. The eldest of their daughter one Muthu Dharsini, was aged about 13 years at the time of occurrence. On 1.10.2007, P.W.1s husband Sivanesan was admitted in a private hospital. Therefore, P.W.1 was attending her husband in the hospital. Around 6.00 p.m, the two younger children of P.W.1 went out to attend the tuition. The said Muthu Dharsini, P.W.2 was alone in the house.

3. The appellant, who was the family friend of P.Ws.1 and 2, and had the acquaintance of around 10 years, visited the house around 6.45 p.m. The appellant is said to have taken the girl to the bed room, removed her nighty and had sexual intercourse with her. He left cautioning the girl not to tell any body. Around 7.30 p.m, P.W.1 came home and saw the girl crying. On enquiry, P.W.2 told the incident to P.W.1. She immediately contacted her brothers, P.Ws.3 and 4. Husband of P.W.1 was also intimated and he has got himself discharged from the hospital and reached home. P.Ws.1 to 4 went in search of the appellant whose house is on the next street. But the house was locked and he has left the house with family.

4. The next day morning, P.W.1 gave a complaint. P.W.14, who was the Inspector of Police at Ennore All Women Police Station., registered a case in Cr.No.11 of 2007 under Sec.376 IPC and commenced the investigation. The victim was subjected for medical examination. The Inspector of Police investigated and examined various witnesses. The appellant was arrested on 10.10.2007. He was also subjected for medical examination. After examination of the doctors and obtaining certificates, P.W.14 completed the investigation and laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur and the case was taken on file in PRC NO.56/2007.

5. On committal, the case was transferred to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ponneri.

6. On appearance of the appellant, charges were framed and the appellant denied the charges. The trial was conducted. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, 14 witnesses were examined, 11 documents were produced. On the basis of the evidence of the prosecutrix and the medical evidence, the learned Additional District Judge found the appellant guilty under Sec.376 IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years RI and imposed a fine of Rs.3000/-.

7. The point for consideration is that whether the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Ponneri is sustainable?

8. Mr. Shanmugavelayutham, learned senior counsel who appeared for the appellant submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix and the medical evidence would not support the case of the prosecution for an offence under Sec.376 IPC. The learned senior counsel pointed out that first of all the age of the prosecutrix was not proved by acceptable evidence. The learned senior counsel also pointed out that the trial court has been carried away by the expert opinion for fixing the age of the prosecutrix between 13 and 14, whereas the upper age limit has to be fixed at more than 16.

9. The learned senior counsel further pointed out that the medical examination of the prosecutrix would suggest that there was no external or internal injuries and the internal examination would show that the prosecutrix was accustomed to sexual intercourse.

10. The learned senior counsel further submitted that there is nothing to suggest that the appellant had sexual intercourse and that to forcibly. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix and the medical evidence are not specific about the sexual intercourse and the