M. Venugopal, J.

1. The Appellant/A.1 has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 18.04.2016 in S.C. No. 21 of 2014 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge (Mahila Court, Fast Track) Udhagamandalam.

2. The Learned Sessions Judge (Mahila Court, Fast Track) Udhagamandalam while passing the impugned Judgment in S.C. No. 21 of 2014 on 18.04.2016 at Paragraph No. 32 had categorically observed that the Appellant/A1 had kidnapped the 14 years old girl (PW-2) from the custody of her parents and further PW-2 was kidnapped without the knowledge of her parents (PW-1 and PW-3) and for more than six months kept her under his custody and on numerous occasions forcibly had sexual intercourse with her and also made her pregnant and these offences were proved by the Respondent/Prosecution without contradictions. Further, the Appellant/A.1 was found not guilty in respect of an offence under Section 366A of IPC. Finally, the Appellant/A.1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo Two Years Rigorous Imprisonment in respect of an offence under Section 363 of IPC and also he was imposed with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further six months Simple Imprisonment.

3. In regard to the offence under Section 376(1) of IPC was concerned, the Appellant/A.1 was found guilty in respect of that offence and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo Seven Years Rigorous Imprisonment and further he was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of said fine amount, he was directed to undergo Two Years Simple Imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, the Appellant/A.1 was found not guilty in respect of an offence under Section 366A read with 109 of IPC and therefore he was acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

4. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment dated 18.04.2016 in S.C. No. 21 of 2014 passed by the trial Court, the Appellant/A.1 has preferred the present Criminal Appeal by contending that in the instant case, the Complainant/PW-1 and PW-2 had deposed before the trial Court that their daughter, viz., PW-2 was in love with the Appellant/A.1 and in fact, the Appellant/A.1 loved PW-2 for the past three years.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant urges before this Court that in Ex.P.1- Complaint (dated 02.09.2012), PW-1 (Father of PW-2) had admitted that his daughter PW-2 was in love with the Appellant and she accompanied the Appellant on her free Will and therefore no offence is made out against the Appellant.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant proceeds to take a stand that based on PW-1's (Complainant) request, the Inspector on 18.12.2012 had altered a charge from 'Girl Missing' to that of Section 366(A) of IPC. In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/A.1 brings it to the notice of this Court that the Inspector (PW-16) arrested Suri @ Suriyakanthan, A.2, Sherly, A.3, Sabastin A.4, Rafeal, A.5 and Antony, A.6 on 29.12.2012.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant takes a plea that PW-16 (Inspector of Police) took up the further investigation of the case in Conoor P.S. No. 385 of 2012 and after examining the relevant witnesses and recording their statements, arrested A.2 to A.6 at 9.30 a.m. on 29.12.2012 at Konoor Mores Garden Junction and later altered the Section into 366(A) and 376(1) of IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 read with 108 IPC from 'Girl Missing' on 18.12.2012. Subsequently, after completion of the investigation, he laid a charge sheet against the Accused concerned.

8. Added further, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that PW-2, PW-3 and PW-12 had deposed before the trial Court that PW-2, viz. Reshma after returning from the school had left Kavya, stating that she had left her note book and she was to get them and moved towards Moor's garden and when she saw the Appellant/A.1 she had compelled him to take her to some other pla