JUDGMENT :

The convicted sole accused is the appellant herein. The appellant herein filed this appeal challenging the Judgment dated 21.08.2013 passed in S.C. No. 3 of 2013 on the file of the Mahila Court, Chengalpattu, convicting him for the offences under Sections 450 & 376 of IPC and sentencing to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment, for each offence and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each offence, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period already undergone was ordered to be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

2. The respondent/police registered the case against the appellant herein in Crime No.179 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 376, 324 of IPC., r/w 5/11 of IPC.

3. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Maduranthagam. The case was taken as PRC. No. 20 of 2012. After completing the formal procedures, as the offence is triable by the Court of Session, the case was committed to the file of learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Chengalpet, where, the case was taken on file as SC.No.3 of 2013.

4. As the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant under Section 376 of IPC relates to a crime against women, it was subsequently made over to the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpet for disposal, and accordingly the case was taken on file by the Mahila Court, Chengalpet.

5. After framing the charges, during trial, in order to prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.14 and 14 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P14. No material object was exhibited in the case.

6. After completing the examination of the prosecution witnesses, incriminating materials culled out from the evidences of the prosecution witnesses were put to the appellant and he denied it as false. However, on the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.

7. Upon completion of argument on either side and considering the materials, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the above said charges and sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment for each charge and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for each charges and in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment for each payment. Challenging the said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the present Appeal is filed before this Court.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution examined totally 14 witnesses and marked 14 documents out of which, Pws.1 to 3 are interesting witnesses as they are relatives of the victim. Further, Pw.2 and 3 are only hearsay witnesses. Pw.5 and 6 have turned hostile. According to the prosecution, the offence was committed on 05.10.2011, but the complaint was given only on 08.10.2011 i.e., three days after the alleged occurrence. The case was registered on 14.10.2011, after six days of the complaint. Thereafter the investigation officer recorded the statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after a period of 4 1/2 of months and the same were also sent belatedly to the Court after three months of the occurrence. Further, there was also delay in preparing the Mahazar by the Investigating Officer.

9. In cases of this nature, medical examination has to be done, within a period of twenty four hours from the time of commission of the offence, whereas, in this case, medical examination was done belatedly. During such medical examination, it was noticed that there was no internal and external injuries and the possibility of recent sexual intercourse of the victim girl could not be ruled out. According to the learned counsel, the case was registered against the appellant herein only due to previous enimity. There is no eye witness in this case. The prosecution foisted a false case against the appellant, who is aged about 64 years and he has not committed any offence, as alleged.