The trustworthiness of the victim's testimony and the admissibility of minor contradictions in witness testimony were central to the court's decision.

1. This appeal preferred as against the conviction and sentence made in judgment dated 04.06.2008 in S.C.No.37 of 2007 on the file of the Sessions Court for Women (Magalir Neethemandram), Salem for the offences under Sections 366A, 376 and 506(ii) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 366A and to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that P.W.1, the mother of the victim lodged a complaint stating that on 15.03.2006 at about 7.30 a.m., her daughter minor Vijaya was kidnapped and threatened her life to dire consequences by the appellant/accused and the victim was taken in bus and got down at Kaverikarai bus stop and proceeded to hills side and committed rape on her. On receipt of the said complaint P.W.11 registered a case in Crime No.17 of 2006 against the accused for the above said offences.

3. The investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police, P.W.11 and the victim was medically examined by P.W.7 and P.W.9 Radiologist and Pathologist, respectively. After recording the statement of witnesses and collecting evidence during the course of the investigation, P.W.11 laid charge sheet under Sections 366A, 376 and 506(ii) of IPC. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 366A, 376 and 506(ii) of IPC against the appellant and the appellant denied the said charges framed against him and claimed trial.

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 and produced M.O.1 to M.O.3. P.W.1 the mother of the victim has been examined, who supported the First Information Report version and proved the complaint Ex.P.1. P.W.2, the victim has been examined, who supported the case of the prosecution and deposed that on 15.03.2006, when her mother P.W.1 went for her avocation she was sleeping in her house. The accused, who had come as guest to her neighbour house, called the victim to go to her mother's work place. When she questioned about her mother, the accused threatened her and boarded into a bus. He got down at Kaverikarai bus stop and compelled her to have sexual intercourse. Even though she refused, the appellant compelled her and raped her. Thereafter, she shouted and the neighbours rescued her and brought her to home. When P.W.2 reached her mother and explained the occurrence and thereafter P.W.1 lodged the complaint.

5. P.W.3, the sister of the victim P.W.2, has been examined, who supported the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.4 to 6 have also been examined to support of the prosecution. P.W.7 has been examined, who has proved that the victim was aged about 16 years and not completed 17 years at the time of occurrence, as per the report Ex.P.3. P.W.9 has been examined, who has deposed that the victim was medically examined by her and proved the medical examination report of the victim Ex.P.8. The report is reproduced below :-

"She is quiet, calm. Answering questions.

Gait - Normal,

Pl- 78/mt CVS - RS -NAD

Face, Breast, Abdomen - No ext. injuries

L/E Pubic hair 1 cmX1 cm long Not matted

Perineum - No ext. injuries

PV Hymen Not intact

Vagina admits 2 fingers easily

Cervix ut RV NS Farnix free

Blood on examining fingers

Vaginal smear taken, sent for chemical analysis opinion reserved pending chemical analysis report. Sd/ 21.03.2006

08.07.2006

No evidence of recent sexual act. Sd/- 06.07.2006"

P.W.11 has been examined, who has deposed that investigation of the case was conducted and the statement of the witnesses were recorded by him during the course of investigation. The dresses of the victim were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.3.

6