1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.11 of 2014, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, [Fast Track Court], Tuticorin. He stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 r/w Section 5(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, [for brevity, “the POCSO Act”]. The Trial Court, by Judgment dated 13.03.2015, has convicted the appellant under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The Trial Court further convicted the appellant under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, [for brevity, “the POCSO Act”] and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. As against the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal.

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

PW-2 is the daughter of PW-1. They were residing at Kombuthurai in Kayalpattinam. PW-2 was hardly fifteen years old at the time of occurrence. She was studying 11th standard in the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Kayalpattinam. The accused became acquainted with her during the said period. During the month of December 2013, on account of her ill-health, PW-2 stopped her studies. On 15.02.2014, during night hours, PW-2 had gone to a church situated in the village. The accused met her near the church and expressed his desire to marry her. He also requested her to come on the next day at 06.00 AM to Mudiyappar Temple in the same village. Accordingly, PW-2 went to Mudiyappar Temple. The accused came there and took her in a bus from Kayalpattinam to Tuticorin, from where he took her to Chennai. On 17.12.2014, early in the morning, they reached Chennai. The accused took PW-2 to a rented house, which was in his occupation. He gave promise to her that he would marry her. On that day, the accused attempted to have sexual intercourse with her. But, PW-2 declined to give consent. With a view to get consent from her, the accused told her that since he was surely going to marry her, there was nothing wrong in having sexual intercourse with him. By giving such assurance, the accused had repeated sexual intercourse with her.

2.1. PW-1, on 16.02.2014, on coming to know that PW-2 had not returned from Mudiyappar Temple, went in search of her to so many places. Since she could not locate her, she proceeded to the Arumuganeri Police Station to make a complaint. PW-9, Mr.Subramaniam, received the said complaint from PW-1 at 02.00 PM, on 17.02.2014 and registered a case under the caption "girl missing". EX-P1 is the complaint and EX-P8 is the First Information Report. He forwarded both these documents to the Court and handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation.

2.2. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, received EXP1 and EX-P8, at 09.50 AM, on 19.02.2014. PW-10, the then Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation. He examined PW-1, her husband and few more witnesses from the said locality and recorded their statements. Then, he obtained certificate from the Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School, where PW-2 was studying, in order to ascertain the age of PW-2. PW-9 was the then Headmaster of the school and she issued EX-P5, certificate. According to the school records, the date of birth of PW-2 was 16.05.1998. PW-10, thereafter proceeded in search of PW-2. On 19.02.2014, at about 04.00 PM, on an information received by him, he proceeded to the Kayalpattinam Bus Stand, where he found PW-2 along with the accused. He arrested the accused and took PW-2 into his custody. He recorded her statement, from and out of which, he came to know that th