JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 29.08.2018 passed in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2017 by the learned Sessions Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court) Namakkal.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused/appellant is a married man having two children. The victim girl was aged about 16 years at the time of occurrence. After completion of +2 examinations, the victim girl used to go for construction work along with her mother, where the appellant was working as a Maistry and the appellant used to contact the victim girl and proposed her to marry him, but, she has refused. However, the appellant regularly followed her and persisted his request for marriage. On 16.08.2016 at about 4.30 p.m., when the victim girl was standing at the bus stop, the appellant for the purpose of marriage enticed and kidnapped her from the lawful guardianship of natural guardians and took her in a motor cycle to Velampalayam and kept her in a rented house owned by one Murugesan (P.W.7). Thereafter, on 17.08.2016 the appellant married the victim girl and thereby, the accused has committed sexual intercourse with the victim girl from 17.08.2016 to 31.10.2016. Hence, a complaint has been lodged against the appellant.

3.The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.322 of 2016 for 'girl missing'. After investigation, the respondent police filed a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court), Namakkal and the same was taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2017. Since the offence is against a girl child, it falls under the definition of 2(1)(d) of POCSO Act.

4.After completing the formalities, the trial Court framed the charges against the appellant for the offence under Section 366(A) IPC, Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Section 5(1) r/w 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereafter referred to as 'POCSO Act' for the sake of convenience].

5.In order to prove the case of the prosecution before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution as many as 16 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.16 and also 16 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P16, besides that two material objects were marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put to the appellant/accused by examining the appellant/accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and he has denied the same as false. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was produced.

6.The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the materials available on record, found that the accused/appellant is guilty for the following offences and imposed sentences as follows :

(i) For the offence under Section 366 (A) IPC, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months ;

(ii) For the offence under Section 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three moths;

(iii) For the offence under Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and the sentences would run concurrently.

7.Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court.

8.1 The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in order to prove the age of the victim girl (P.W.2), the prosecution has not produced any document before the Court. The mother of the victim girl (P.W.3) in her cross examination deposed that at the time of getting admission in the school, they gave the approximate date of birth of the victim girl