A. Selvam, J.

1. The conviction and sentence dated 19.3.2008, passed in Sessions Case No. 118 of 2007, by the Assistant Sessions Court, Cheyyar, Tiruvanamalai District, are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.3.2007 at about 5.30 p.m. the prosecutrix has gone to the house of the accused for seeing television and at that time, the accused has vulnerably raped the prosecutrix and after the occurrence, her father by name Perumal, as defacto-complainant has given a complaint and the same has been registered in Cr. No. 2 of 2007. The Complaint and the same has been registered in Cr. No. 2 of 2007. The complaint given by the defacto-complainer has been marked as Ex. p. 1.

2. On receipt of Ex. p. 1 the investigating officer, viz., P.W. 12 has conducted investigation, examined the connected witnesses and also made arrangements to conduct medical examination both to the prosecutrix and to the accused and after completing the investigation, he has laid final report on the file of judicial magistrate No. 1 Cheyyar and the same has been taken on file in P.R.C. No. 7 of 2007.

3. The Judicial Magistrate No. I, Cheyyar after considering the facts that the offence, alleged to have been committed by the accused, is triable by the Sessions Court, has committed the case to the court of sessions, Tiruvannamalai Division and the same has been taken on file in S. No. 118 of 2007 and subsequently, transferred to the file of the trial Court.

4. The trial Court, after hearing both sides and upon perusing the relevant records, has framed charges against the accused under Sec. 376(1) of Indian Penal Code and the same has been read over and explained to him. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 12 have been examined and Exs. P. 1 to P. 8 have been marked.

6. When the accused have been questioned under Sec. 313 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crimes. No oral and documentary evidence have been adduced on the side of the accused.

7. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments of both sides and after preponding the available evidence on record, has found the accused guilty under Sec. 376(2) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo 10 years Rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with usual default clause. Against the order of conviction and sentence, passed by the sessions court, the present criminal appeal has been preferred at the instance of the accused as appellant.

8. The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is that on 10.3.2007 at about 5.30 p.m. while the prosecutrix has been watching television in the house of the accused, he raped her.

9. The entire case of the prosecution hinges upon Ex. p. 1 the complaint coupled with the evidence given by the prosecutrix, who has been examined as P.W. 2. The trial Court after considering the evidence given by P.W. 2 and other medical evidence, has found the accused guilty under section mentioned supra.

10. The learned counsel, appearing for the appellant/accused has raised the following points so as to set aside the conviction and sentence, passed by the trial court.

a. The specific case of the prosecution is that the occurrence has been taken place on 10.3.2007 whereas the complaint/ex. p. 1 has been given on 12.03.2007;

b. The specific evidence given by the prosecutrix (p.w. 2) is that even on the date of occurrence, a complaint has been given to Thoosi Police Station and even on the same day, she has been subjected to medical examination by a Doctor in Mamandur, but the prosecution has failed to file the earlier complaint alleged to have been given and also failed to examine the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix first;

c. On the side of the prosecution M.Os. 1 to 3 have been marked, but the same have not been subjected to chemical examination.

1