JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to call for the entire records in connection with the Spl.S.C.No.20 of 2017 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Magalir Nethi Mandram, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District and set aside the judgment dated 29.04.2019.

2. The respondent-Police registered a case against the appellant in Crime No.60 of 2015, for the offence under Section 366(A) and section 5(l) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. After the investigation, laid a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri. After completing the formalities, the learned Judge, Fast Track Court, Krishngiri, taken the charge sheet on file in Spl.S.C.No.20 of 2017. After framing the charges for the offences under sections 366, 342 IPC and section 5(l) of POCSO Act against the appellant/accused, during the trial, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to 13 and 17 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to P.17 but no material object was exhibited. After completing the evidence on the side of prosecution witnesses, incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses were put before the appellant, for which, he denied it as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of defence, no oral and documentary evidence was produced.

3. After completing the trial and after hearing the arguments on either side, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under section 342 IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 months Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month and convicted for the offence under section 366 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo R.I for 6 months and convicted for the offence under section 5(l) of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo R.I for 1 year. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, the accused has filed the present appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has not proved the age of the victim girl. At the time of occurrence, she was not below 18 years but actually her age was above 18 years and no birth certificate was produced. Even though the girl has stated that she was studying 10th standard and her age was 16 years, neither birth certificate or school studying certificate are produced nor records from the school has been summoned. Therefore, the age has not been established. However, the victim girl has clearly stated that the appellant married the victim girl and father of the victim girl also left her in the appellant's house as if she is wife of the appellant and the appellant also taken back her daughter. The learned counsel further submitted that there was no kidnapping or abduction because the victim girl had voluntarily eloped with the appellant and since she voluntarily eloped with the appellant, there is no offence of kidnapping or abduction. Further no witness has spoken about the wrongful confinement of the victim girl and it has been clearly stated that the victim girl accompanied the appellant's place wherever the appellant goes, therefore, there is no wrongful confinement. P.W.2 is not an eye witness and he is only father of the victim girl even though he has given the complaint. Further the learned counsel would submit that even the doctor has stated that there was no recent sexual assault and therefore, there is no case and therefore, the offence would not fall under section 5(1) of POCSO Act and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges as framed against the appellant. Even though it is stated that the age of the victim girl is 16 years, the prosecution has not proved the age and therefore, she is above 18 yea