JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal in S.C.No.88 of 2014, dated 20.08.2018.

2. The respondent Police have registered a case in Crime No.74 of 2013, for offence under Sections 376(i), 376-C(a) IPC (Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013), 417 IPC r/w 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 against the appellant on the complaint (Ex.P1) given by the victim (PW1). During investigation, the respondent Police altered Sections into 376(i), 376-C(a) IPC (Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013), 417 IPC r/w 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 and Section 3(i)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.22 of 2013. After the completing the formalities, since the offences are especially triable by the Court of Session, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram committed the case to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.88 of 2014.

3. After completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C., since there was a prima facie material to frame charge against the appellant, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, farmed charges under Sections 376(i), 376 C(a) IPC as Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, 417 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act 44/1998 amended as per TN Act 39/2002 and Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

4. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge found the appellant not guilty under Section 376(c)(a) of IPC as Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 and Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and found guilty and convicted and sentenced as follows:-

For offence under Section 376(i) IPC, the appellant to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment.

For offence under Section 417 IPC, the appellant to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment.

For offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act 44/1998 amended as per TN Act 39/2002, the appellant to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment.

5. Challenging the above said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal before this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that none of the ingredients of the offence under Sections 376(i) IPC, 417 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act 44/1998 amended as per TN Act 39/2002 would made out against the appellant. He would further submit that on 21.04.2013, when the victim (PW1) demanded mutton to prepare food, the appellant refused to purchase the same, but the victim (PW1) insisted him to purchase mutton. Hence, the appellant made a complaint to PW9, who was running the Smart Home Care Service, Coimbatore to take back the victim (PW1) and PW9 informed she would arrange for substitution. In order to wreak vengeance due to personal grudge over the same, she lodged a false complaint (Ex.P1) against the appellant. The victim (PW1) deposed that she was raped on 09.07.2012 by the appellant on promise that he would marry her and do needful for her children. But she preferred to leave the appellant on her own on 21.04.2013 at about 10.30 a.m., for not purchasing mutton for her. Hence, it is an unnatural conduct of woman. The learned counsel would further submit that there are material contradictions with regard to the alleged in