JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment passed in C.A.No.16/2011 dated 10.07.2015 by the Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai, convicting the petitioner under Section 417 of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo, R.I for 10 months confirming the trial Court order dated 14.09.2011 passed in C.C.No.98/2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Chengam convicting him under Section 417 of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I for 10 months.)

1. The convicted sole accused is the revision petitioner herein.

2. The respondent-police filed a final report in Crime No.11 of 2007 alleging that, on promise to marry P.W.1 victim girl, the accused had sexual intercourse and subsequently left to Bangalore and off and on, when he visits the native place, she had sexual intercourse with P.W.1 and P.W.1 become pregnant and when P.W.1 asked the accused to marry her, he criminally intimidated and hence charge under Section 417 and 506 (i) of I.P.C.

3. After observing formalities, the case was taken on file as C.C.No.98/2008 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, chengam.

4. During the trial, P.Ws.1 to 11 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Chengam, by order dated 14.09.2011, had passed the impugned judgment against the appellant.

5. The trial Court has convicted the accused and the appellate Court dismissed and hence the revision.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 417 I.P.C and acquitted under Section 506 (i) I.P.C.

7. The case of the prosecution is that on promise to marry, the revision petitioner had sexual intercourse with P.W.1 and made her pregnant and she threatened her not to disclose the sexual intercourse. After birth of the child, inspite of the repeated demands, the revision petitioner/accused refused to marry P.W.1 and hence the complaint.

8. Both the trial Court and Lower Appellate Court has convicted the accused and the learned counsel also relied upon the grounds raised in the revision that there is a delay in filing the complaint before the Magistrate Court and the evidence of P.W.1 is not disclosing the fact of the earliest possible time and the appellant is working in Bangalore and hence he is no way responsible for the pregnancy and with regard to the place of occurrence, whether it is the house of P.W.4 or in the open space, in the land, there is a contradiction.

9. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) who contended that there is a delay in filing the complaint and at the first instance, P.W.1 has not disclosed as who is responsible for the pregnancy.

10. The victim girl was examined as P.W.1. P.W.2 is the mother of the victim. P.W.3 is the father, while P.W.4 is the elder sister of P.W.2 and P.W.5 is the sister of P.W.1. Attestor of the observation mahazar was examined as P.W.6 and P.W.7 Doctor, had given Medical Certificate under Ex.P3. P.W.8 is the Doctor. P.W.10 is the Assistant Professor at Government Medical College who have issued D.N.A report stating that for the baby, P.W.1 is the biological mother and the accused is the biological father.

11. The trial Court has believed the evidence of P.W.1 and laid the conviction. The lower Appellate Court has taken into consideration the evidence of P.W.1 and the medical officer P.W.8 and has confirmed the conviction.

12. On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, she had categorically deposed about the relationship between the accused and P.W.1 and as and when he visits the native place, he assured that he would marry her and the accused had sexual intercourse and thereafter, the accused has left for Bangalore, however on regular visits, he used to have for sexual intercourse and she became pregnant. Her parents P.W.2 and P.W.3 and P.W.5 have enquired about the pregnancy and so she had disclosed the relationship she had with the accused. P.W.8 is the Me