JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 16.04.2019 in Spl.S.C.No.36 of 2018 on the file of the learned Fast Track Magalir Neethi Mandram, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 08.04.2018 at about 4.30 p.m the appellant abducted the victim girl (P.W.2) from her house to Tirupathi for the purpose of committing sexual assault. On the same day itself, he married the victim girl at Kiltirupathi. Thereafter, on 11.04.2018, the appellant took the victim girl to his friend's house situated at Avadanapatti Colony, Krishnagiri District and forcibly committed sexual assault with her. Subsequently, a complaint has been filed by (P.W.1), who is the mother of the victim girl before the respondent police. Based on the complaint given by P.W.1, the respondent police arrested the appellant and secured the victim girl.

3.The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.8 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Section 366(A) IPC later altered into Section 5(l) r/w 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereafter 'POCSO Act' for the sake of convenience]. After investigation, the respondent police filed a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Magalir Neethi Mandram, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. Since the offence is against a girl child, it falls under the definition of POCSO Act, 2012 and the learned Sessions Judge taken cognizance of the charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.36 of 2018. After completing formalities, the trial Court framed the charges against the appellant for the offence under Section 366 IPC, Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Section 5(1) r/w 6 of POCSO Act.

4.In order to prove the case of the prosecution before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution as many as 17 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.17 and also marked Exs.P1 to P26 and no material object was marked. After completion of the prosecution side evidences, the incriminating circumstances were put against the appellant/accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and he denied all the incriminating circumstances as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was produced.

5.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 and convicted and sentenced him as follows:-

* For offence punishable under Section 366 IPC, the appellant has to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

* For offence punishable under Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the appellant has to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.

* For offence punishable under Section 5(1) r/w 6 of POCSO Act the appellant has to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and ordering the sentences to run concurrently.

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

7.1 The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the de facto complainant (P.W.1) / the mother of the victim girl has not supported the case of the prosecution. In the complaint (Ex.P18) she has stated that on 08.04.2018 at about 4.30 p.m her daughter went to the shop, did not return and on suspicion, she gave a complaint to the respondent police as her daughter was kidnapped by the appellant. However, she has not named the appellant in her chief examination. Whereas, the victim girl (P.W.2) in her chief examination has deposed that since she did not study well, her father scolded her and hence, she left the home