P. Devadass, J.

APPELLANT:

This appeal, by the father of the complainant, is challenging the conviction and sentences passed against him under Section 376(1) and 506(ii) IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore, on 28.1.2013, in the Sessions Case, in S.C.No.199 of 2010.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCE:

2. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant to life with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 376(1) IPC and also convicted and sentenced him to 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 506(ii) IPC. However, directed both the sentences to run concurrently.

PROSECUTION CASE:

3. The prosecution case, in brief, may be recounted as under :

(1) P.W.1 is the daughter of P.W.2 and the appellant. On 1.9.2006, they have brought P.W.1, an unwed pregnant girl of 16 years old, to Thayarammal Poly Clinic, Coimbatore. On examination, P.W.6 Dr.Geetha, found a foetus of 24 weeks in her womb. With the consent of her parents, on 2.9.2006, P.W.6 aborted it.

(2) On 31.7.2009, at B-7 Ramanathapuram Police Station, Coimbatore, P.W.1 gave complaint to P.W.13, Saraswathi, Woman S.I. that during March, 2006, her father raped her, she became pregnant, the child was forcibly aborted and subsequently on 30.7.2009 also he raped her and criminally intimidated her and her mother. P.W.13 registered a case in Crime No.990 of 2009 under Section 376(1) and 506(i) IPC (See Ex.P.5 F.I.R.) .

(3) P.W.7, Ganesh, Inspector received a copy of the FIR. Commenced his investigation. Visited P.W.1's house. In the presence of P.W.9 Dineshkumar and another, prepared Ex.P.7, observation mahazar. Drew Ex.P.6, rough sketch. P.W.8, Vanithamani, Headmistress, Corporation High School, Varadarajapuram, issued Ex.P.11, certificate to the effect that P.W.1 was born on 2.5.1990.

(4) On 6.8.2009, at the Govt. Hospital, Coimbatore, when P.W.4, Dr.Savithri examined P.W.1, she told her that in March, 2006, in their house, her father raped her, on 2.9.2006, in Thayarammal Poly Clinic, abortion was done, thereafter, on 30.7.2009 also, he raped her. P.W.4 recorded her this statement in Ex.P.2 Accident Register and also noted multiple scars of about 1 x 1 cm over her lower limbs and linear scar of about 15 cm over the supra pubic area.

(5) On 6.10.2009, P.W.12, Parameswari, Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore recorded the statement of P.W.1 under Section 164 Cr.P.C.(Ex.P14).

(6) P.W.7 examined the witnesses and recorded their statement. Arrested the accused. Dr.Sudalaimuthu examined him and determined that he is about 50 years old. [Ex.P.9, age certificate]. On medical examination, the accused was found to have potentiality (Ex.P.13 certificate). He was remanded to judicial custody. Concluding his investigation, P.W.7 filed the final report against him for offences under Section 376(1) and 506(ii) IPC.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :

4. To substantiate the twin charges framed under Section 376(1) and 506(ii) IPC, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.14.

EXAMIANTION U/S.313 Cr.P.C. :

5. On the prosecution evidence, the trial court examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied his complicity in this case. He did not examine any witness nor produce any document.

TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS :

6. In the trial court, P.Ws.1 to 3 have completely turned hostile. However, the trial court referring to the statement of P.W.1 to the Doctor P.W.4, P.W.1's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to P.W.12 Judicial Magistrate, certain answers given by the accused when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the demeanour of P.W.1 and of the accused, held that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubts and convicted and sentenced the accused as stated in para 2, supra.

TRIAL COURT'S DECISION: questioned

7. Mr.C.S.Dhanasekaran, learned counsel for the appellant contended t