S. Nagamuthu, J.

1. This is a case of child rape. The appellant/accused is the sole accused in S.C. No. 85 of 2006 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Tirunelveli. The trial court framed two charges against the accused. He stood charged for offences under Sections 366 and 376(1) of IPC. By judgment dated 26.02.2007, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant/accused under Sections 366 and 376(1) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 366 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 376(1) of IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused is now before this court with this criminal appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The victim of the alleged rape in this case is one 'X' [The name of the victim is consciously avoided]. At the time of occurrence, X was studying VI standard in a local school. Thus, she was hardly aged 11 years. P.W.1 is the father and P.W.3 is the mother of X. They were residing in a village in Tenkasi Taluk. X used to go to her school everyday on walk. The accused is also a resident of the same village. He was running a two-wheeler mechanic shop.

3. According to the case of the prosecution, on 25.07.2005, in the usual course, X was proceeding to her school. The accused, who came in a motor cycle, intercepted her and told her that he would take her in his motor cycle and drop her in the school. As the accused was already known to her and on few occasions in the past the accused had taken her in his motor cycle to the school, she believed his words and agreed to travel with him in the motor cycle. He took her in the motor cycle, not to the school, but to his workshop. X enquired him as to why he had brought her to his workshop. He told her that after meeting a friend who was on his way to his workshop he would take her again in his motor cycle and drove her in the school.

4. It is the further case of the prosecution that thereafter, the accused took her to Tenkasi in a bus from where he took her to Madurai by another bus and from Madurai to Coimbatore and finally, to Tiruppur. It is further alleged that at Tiruppur, he fixed a rented house where he forced her to reside along with him. With the help of a friend of him by name Mr. Ganesan, he secured a job in a local workshop. As and when he used to go for his workshop, he locked the house from outside thereby confining X in the house. While in the said house, when X insisted him to take her back to her parental home, the accused threatened her of dire consequences. While in the house, on one occasion, he made sexual overtures and removed her dress by force. When she resisted, with a knife he made a scratch injury on her leg and kept her under fear. Then, he had forcible sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, he repeatedly had sexual intercourse with her in a span of about 50 days.

5. Meanwhile, P.W.1 and P.W.3 were shocked that X did not return from the school on 25.07.2005 in the evening. They went in search of X. They heard from the fellow students of X that she was taken in the motor cycle by the accused and she did not attend the class on that day. They found the accused also missing. Thereafter, P.W.1 made a complaint to the police on 29.07.2005. P.W.9, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Kadayanallur Police Station, received the complaint under Ex. P.1 and registered a case in Crime No. 542 of 2005 for offence under Section 366A of IPC. Ex. P.8 is the printed FIR. He forwarded both the complaint and the FIR to the court and handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation.

6. P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation on 29.07.2005, proceeded t