S. Vimala, J.

1. The accused in S.C. No. 89 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions (Fast Track Court No. 2), Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District, is the appellant herein.

1.2. By judgment dated 03.02.2005, the accused was convicted under Sections 341, 376and 506(ii) of IPC and sentenced to: (a) undergo imprisonment for one month in respect of the offence under Section 341 IPC; (b) undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years in respect of the offence under Section 376 IPC and (c) undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year in respect of the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC.

1.3. Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him, this appeal has been filed.

2. Brief facts:

"The occurrence is stated to have taken place during the month of May 2001. The victim girl (name changed) went out of the house to answer the call of nature. At that time, accused followed her and he took her to a nearby coconut thope and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She did not immediately informed this incident to the family members. The explanation is that, fearing threat to her life, as the accused threatened to do away with her life if the incident is disclosed to anybody else, she did not inform anybody. Later on, on sensing that there was a foetus inside the womb, she disclosed the same to her mother. She was admitted to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. The doctors confirmed the pregnancy and thereafter she preferred a complaint to the All Women Police Station. She delivered a child on 27.02.2002 and the child is stated to be studying 9th Standard at Pattukkottai Government Higher Secondary School."

2.1. The victim's mother has been examined as P.W.2. The doctor who examined the accused, P.W.9-Dr. Sekar, gave a certificate stating that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is impotent. P.W.10, Dr. Jayanthi, who conducted radiological examination upon the victim girl and based upon the request made by the Judicial Magistrate, gave an opinion that she has completed 14, but did not complete 16. P.W.13-Dr. Kasturi, examined her after delivery and she has given an opinion that there are evidences to show the child birth, but obviously she could not give opinion as to whether there are available evidence to indicate whether she could have been subjected to sexual intercourse or not. In other words, the examination of the victim girl by the doctor has lost all relevance, after the victim girl having delivered the child, namely, the second victim on account of the occurrence. The victim girl as well as the accused have been subjected to forensic DNA examination and the forensic experts have given opinion that the accused is the putative father of the child. The forensic expert has given an opinion that the possibility of the accused being father of the child is 99.9998%. Therefore, it is a case not only of the victim, by the victim, for the victim, but also the victim of the victim.

3. The case of the defence is that the victim girl wanted to marry the accused, but as she was short-statured and not good looking, the accused refused to marry her and that is why this case has been falsely foisted against him. In the evidence, it is stated that the victim girl was aged 26 or 27 even at the time of the incident, and not 16 to 18 as contended by the prosecution.

4. Accepting the evidence of P.W.1, giving a finding that the contradictions and omissions need not be given much importance, the Court has convicted the accused under Section376 IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years of rigorous imprisonment.

5. The victim of the victim, namely, the child born to the accused and the victim girl is present before this Court along with her uncle, Ramamoorthy, S/o. Manickam. One Nirmala, who is stated to have married the accused, through whom she has got two children by names Yuvaraj and Desika, is also present. The villagers, viz. Baladhandayutham, S/o. Chinnaiyan and T. Thangaraj, S/o. Thirumeni are also present.

6. It is the case of the