S. NAGAMUTHU, J.

1. The appellant is the sole accused in Special Sessions Case No. 20/2015 on the file of Fast Track Mahila Court (Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012), Erode. He stood charged for the offence under Sections 366 IPC, Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). By Judgment dated 29.10.2015, the trial Court convicted him under all the three charges and sentenced the appellant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 366 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this appeal.

2. This Criminal Appeal came up before the Division Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. Selvam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Kalaiyarasan. Since the accused was not represented by any counsel, the Division Bench dismissed the criminal appeal, by Judgment dated 01.12.2016, for default. Thereafter, the appellant filed a petition in Crl. M.P. No. 4607 of 2017, seeking restoration of the appeal. A question arose before this Court as to whether the dismissal of the criminal appeal summarily for default was correct and whether this Court could restore the appeal.

3. This Court, after having referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bani Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. 1996 (4) SCC 720 and Surya Baksh Singh vs. State of U.P. 2015 (1) SCC (Crl) 313 and Vishnu Agarwal vs. State of U.P. 2011 (3) MLJ (Crl) 63 (SC), by Order dated 12.04.2017, allowed the petition and restored the Criminal Appeal. That is how, the present Criminal Appeal is taken up for disposal.

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

(a) PW-1 is the father of PW-2. PW-2's mother is one Mrs. Banumathi. They were residing at Porainayankadu village in Erode District. PW-2 is the victim in this case. She was studying XII Standard in Government Higher Secondary School, Eengoor. There was a house, under construction, by the side of the house of PW-1. The accused was working in the said building as a construction worker for sometime. At that time, the accused developed friendship with PW-2. On few occasions, the accused had taken PW-2 in the motorcycle to the school. On coming to know about the same, PW-1 warned the accused not to do so. PW-1 believed that the accused had stopped his love for PW-2, but it did not happen.

(b) On 22.09.2014, as usual, around 8.00 a.m. PW-2 was proceeding to her school. When she was waiting at the bus stop at Sennimalai, the accused came there. He lured PW-2 stating that he would marry her. Deceived by such words, PW-2 accompanied him. He took her to Salem Bus Stand, left the motorcycle at cycle stand at Salem Bus Stand, then took PW-2 in the bus to Bangalore. In Bangalore they stayed at Ennore Cross in Nehru Nagar. He took a room and stayed with PW-2. In Bangalore the accused performed marriage with PW-2. Thereafter, they started living together at Bangalore itself. During the said period, on several occasions, the accused had sexual intercourse with PW-2. The accused was doing sundry work there for his livelihood. Since there was no sufficient income, the accused took PW-2 to Natram Palli at Thayappan Circle and took a hut on rent belonging to Tirupati and stayed there. There also, the accused had repeated sexual intercourse, as a result, PW-2 became pregnant. When she was three months pregnant, the police rescued her from the hut of Tirupati on 31.01.2015.

(c) PW-1, as usu