JUDGMENT :

R.N. Manjula, J.

(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 30.07.2018 made in S.C.No.229 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur.)

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Accused to set aside the conviction and sentence made in S.C.No.229/2014 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur, dated 30.07.2018, as tabulated hereunder:

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

The victim ‘X’ was married to one Sathyamoorthy 6 years prior to the date of occurrence and they were living in the house of her father Nataraj (PW.1). She has moderate mental retardation. The husband of the victim had deserted her after 6 months of marriage and hence the victim was residing along with her parents. On 05.02.2014 at about 3.00 pm the victim ‘X’ went outside her house and was walking a few feet away from her house. The accused who was standing there, pulled her hands and took her near a cotton godown and pushed her inside the godown, locked the door and raped her forcibly. On the complaint given by PW1, the father of the victim, a case was registered in Crime No.2/2014 by the respondent Police. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under Sec.376(I) IPC.

2.1. The Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi, took cognizance of the charge sheet and furnished copies to the accused. After complying with the due legal formalities, the case was committed to the Principal Sessions Court, Tripupur under section 209-A Cr.P.C. and subsequently, the case was made over the Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur.

2.2. On hearing the submissions of both sides, the Sessions Court framed charge against the accused for the offence under Sec.376 (I) IPC and read over the charge to the accused. When the accused was questioned about the charge, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2.3. During the course of the trial, from the side of the prosecution, 14 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 14 and 16 exhibits were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-16 and M.Os. 1 to 7 were marked. From the side of the defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

2.4. After concluding the trial and upon hearing both sides, the trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted him as stated in the opening paragraph. Challenging the same, the appellant/accused has preferred this Criminal Appeal.

3. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses in brief:

PW.1-Nataraj is the complainant and the father of the victim. His evidence would reveal that the victim was under his custody after she was deserted by her husband. PW.1’s wife was bed-ridden, as she was affected by paralysis. PW1 deposed that his daughter is a moderately retarded person. On the date of occurrence, PW.1 and his son Rangasamy went to graze their goats. His daughter ‘X’ was standing near her house and at that time, she was pulled by the accused who was in a drunken mood. Despite her resistance, the accused injured her on the left thigh with a knife and raped her. When PW.1 and his son returned home in the evening, they found the victim ‘X’ lying on the doorsteps. Immediately, PW1 took her to a private hospital at Avinashi for treatment. Thereafter, PW.1 went to the police station and lodged a complaint (Ex.P.1).

3.1. The victim ‘X’ has deposed that on the date of occurrence (05.02.2014), she went to a nearby shop and when she was returning home, the accused took her to the cotton godown and raped her there. She has stated that one Ramasamy was aware of the occurrence. Because of the violence, the victim was bleeding in her private parts and she