B. Rajendran, J.

1. The petitioner was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 417 and 376 of IPC and on completion of trial, the trial court convicted him for the offences under Section 417 and 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 417 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 7,000/- in default to undergo 2 years Rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal in C.A. No. 33 of 2010 before the appellate Court and the appellant court confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment to Simple Imprisonment by the Appellate Court on 13.07.2010. As against the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present Criminal Revision. The case of the prosecution is that the accused and the victim are lovers and by giving false promise to marry her, had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions and she became pregnant and she also gave birth to a child viz., Akash. Thereafter, when she asked him to marry, he refused and threatened her in dire consequences. Therefore, PW 1 gave a complaint, based on which the case in Crime No. 309 of 2009 came to be registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 417 and 376 of IPC.

2. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 11 were examined and Exs. P1 to P10 were marked. On behalf of the accused no documentary evidence were marked or witnesses were examined. On conclusion of trial and upon analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court convicted the accused. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate Court. In the appeal, the appellate court also confirmed the conviction made by the Trial Court and modified the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment to Simple Imprisonment. Against which, the present revision has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the lower Court failed to take into consideration the fact that no case is made out against the petitioner for the offence under Section 376 IPC. The learned counsel would further contend that P.W. 1 herself has clearly stated in the chief examination that she has not given complaint as if the petitioner has threatened her and raped her. The learned counsel would also contend that P.W. 1 has given complaint only after 6 months from the date of denial of the marriage by the accused. It is submitted by the learned counsel that P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 have stated that as the petitioner has promised P.W. 1 to marry her, she has given consent for intercourse with the petitioner and the same would not attract Section 376 IPC. According to the learned counsel, at the time of incident, P.W. 1 was major and hence, if at all the petitioner has committed any offence, it could be only under Section 417 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the petitioner has already undergone sentence for a period of 6 months. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for showing leniency in reduction of sentence.

4. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the Court below, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, has rightly convicted the petitioner. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that the petitioner was in jail for the period from six months. The learned Government Advocate would also submit that P.W. 1 was major at the time of incident.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. The only point for consideration in this revision is as to whether the accused had committed the offence under Section 376 Cr.P.C.

7. On a careful perusal of the entire evidence, it is clear that on the date of incident, P.W. 1 was major. It is not in dispute that the accused h