Point of Law: It is not possible to find out any external injuries. P.W.9 doctor who determined the age of the victim girl by taking X-ray ascertained age of victim as above 15 years and below 17 years. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 and doctor evidence P.W.9, 10 and 12 and also the evidence of Village Administrative Officer, the prosecution has proved its case.

JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed u/s. 374(2) of Cr. P.C., praying to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by judgment dated 29.08.2019 passed in S.C. No. 327/2014 on the file of Magalir Neethi Mandram, Salem.

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by judgment dated 29.08.2019 passed in S.C.No.327/2014 on the file of Magalir Neethi Mandram, Salem.

2. The respondent police registered the case against the appellant and one unknown person in Crime No.367/2009 for the offence u/s.366, 376 IPC and Section 4(1)5(1)(c) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. After investigation, respondent police laid the charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur, who taken the case on file in P.R.C.No.31/2012 and committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Salem. The learned Sessions Judge, Salem, taken the case on file in S.C.No.327/2014 and made over the case to the Mahila Court, Court, Salem, since offence is against women. The learned Special Judge, after completing the formalities framed the charge against the appellant for the offence under Sections 366(A) 376 r/w.109 IPC and Section 5(1) r/w.(i) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

3. After framing charges, during the trial, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 15 and 12 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and no material object was exhibited.

4. After completing the examination of the prosecution witnesses, incriminating circumstances culled out from the prosecution witnesses put before the appellant and she denied it as false. No oral or documentary evidence was examined and produced on the side of the defence.

5. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments on either side, the Designated Court convicted the appellant for the offence u/s.366(A) and 376 IPC r/w.109 and also under Section 5(1) r/w. Proviso(i) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The appellant was sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence u/s.366(A) IPC; sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence u/s.376 r/w.109 IPC; sentenced to undergo 3 years Rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 5(1) r/w.Proviso (i) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Challenging the said conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, the accused filed the present appeal before this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged kidnapping by the appellant and the alleged rape committed on the victim as alleged by the prosecution. Motive was not proved by the prosecution. No independent witness was examined and the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence of P.W.1 victim has not been corroborated by any of the independent witnesses. There was a delay in filing the complaint and the delay was not explained and the unexplained inordinate delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The prosecution did not take any steps to identify the alleged accused person and the alleged rape on the victim. The case of the appellant is that another accused could not be identified, therefore, no incriminating materials is available against the appellant. The parents of the victim did not make any complaint about her missing especially when the victim was alleged to be taken away by the appellant by making false promise and the victim came out from her house. The place of occurrence was not established. There is no independent witness in this case. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution are all interested witnesses and official witnesses. Ther