State is the appellant in Crl.A.No.301 of 2004 and the respondent is the accused. This appeal has been filed challenging the acquittal of the respondent/accused in S.C.No.376 of 1999 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Salem by judgment dated 08.12.2000. The defacto complainant in the said case has come up with Crl.R.C.No.414 of 2001 challenging the said acquittal of the accused.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

i) P.W.1 is a resident of Salem. During the year 1997, she was residing at her own house at Azhapuram Kattur in Salem. She had two daughters by name Preethi (the deceased) and Madumitha (P.W.14). The deceased was then aged hardly 16 years and she was studying +2 course in a local school. P.W.14 was doing 10th standard in a different school. P.W.1 was working as a Junior Engineer in Salem Municipal Corporation. The accused is a registered contractor in the said Municipality and in that manner, he came to be introduced to P.W.1. The accused helped P.W.1 in so many ways. Thus, as days passed, he became very close to her. Slowly the accused started visiting P.W.1 at her house. P.W.11 is the father of P.W.1. He along with his other family members was residing in Achankuttapatti village. The frequent visits made by the accused to the house of P.W.1 was opposed to by P.W.11 and other family members. But the accused did not stop. P.W.1s husband died in the year 1986 and so, she was living alone with her children. The accused told P.W.1 that since his wife was mentally ill, he had lost peace in his life. So, he expressed his desire to marry P.W.1. But P.W.1 declined. Thereafter, P.W.1 started constructing a house. The accused helped her to construct the same. In due course, P.W.1 and the accused had developed illicit intimacy. The accused used to stay during night hours with P.W.1 at her house. The accused insisted that the children of P.W.1 should call him as “Daddy”. But the children declined. The newly constructed house where P.W.1 and her children had started residing, had three keys. The first key would be with P.W.1; the second key with the accused and the third key with the deceased Preethi.

ii) On 15.06.1997 in the morning, when P.W.1 was at home, the accused spoke to her over phone. He wanted P.W.1 to be ready to go to her parent’s home. P.W.1 told him that she had cancelled the idea of going to her parent’s home on that day, since she had planned to go on the next Monday. The accused told her that she could go on that day as well as on Monday. P.W.1 agreed. She was ready along with the deceased at her home. The accused came to her house in a car. On seeing the deceased getting ready to go over to her grand parent’s house, the accused told P.W.1 and the deceased that it was not good for the deceased to go to the house of P.W.1’s parents in view of the ensuing +2 examinations. He persuaded both P.W.1 and the deceased in this regard. So, the deceased stayed back in the house itself. P.W.1 and the accused alone went in his car. He left P.W.1 at her parents house - (P.W.11’s house). Madumitha-P.W.14 was already in the house of P.W.11. On seeing P.W.1, P.W.14 and the wife of P.W.11 enquired about the deceased. P.W.1 told them that the deceased had been left behind at her house alone. After leaving P.W.1 at the house of P.W.11, the accused left in the same car.

iii) Around 2.00 p.m on that day, P.W.11 came to his house. He told P.W.1 that when he spoke over phone to the house of P.W.1, the accused attended the phone and then he handed over the same to the deceased. He also informed P.W.1 that the deceased was very dull while she spoke over phone. P.W.11 took exception to P.W.1 for having left the deceased alone. In the evening, P.W.1 was waiting for the arrival of the accused to take her back. At about 6.45 p.m, the accused came. The deceased Preethi also came in the same car along with the accused. Preethi got down from the car and stood on the road itself without going int