JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment of the learned Mahila Judge (Fast Track) of Nilgiris at Ootacamund made in C.A.No.12 of 2013 dated 04.09.2015 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam made in S.C.No.13 of 2011 dated 10.09.2013.)

1. The matter is heard through “Video Conference”.

2. The respondent~police, filed final report against the appellant and another accused for the alleged offence under Section 417, 376, 506(ii) and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, (herein after referred to as -the Act-). After trial, A2 was acquitted.

3. The criminal revision petition is filed against the judgment of the learned Mahila Judge (Fast Track) of Nilgiris at Ootacamund made in C.A.No.12 of 2013 dated 04.09.2015, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam made in S.C.No.13 of 2011 dated 10.09.2013.

4. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam, had laid the conviction and sentence against A1 as stated supra. On appeal in criminal appeal No.12/2013, dated 04.09.2015, the learned Mahila Judge, Udhagamandalam, has chosen to confirm the conviction, after reduced the sentence of 376 to three years rigorous imprisonment i.e., below the minimum sentence, no special reason has been assigned there for.

5. The case of the prosecution is that

(i) on 20.04.2006, at about 11.30 am, the alleged victim girl/P.W.1 and the first accused were lived in New Hope Estate, Gudalur, stating that the accused pulled the hands of the victim and taken her to the Room No.373, in the residential area and the first accused made a promise to marry and committed sexual assault. However, the minor victim girl, refused to submit herself, against her interest and willingness, he committed sexual intercourse on her and after that on 30.04.2006, around 12.00 noon and again on 10.05.2006, at 11.30 am, and on 20.04.2006 and 18.11.2006, he had promised to marry and stated that he did not marry any other person except the victim girl. Subsequently, the victim girl was found 7 months pregnant on 23.11.2006 and she went along with the relatives, the first accused refused to marry and the first accused along with second accused criminally threatened her and hence, the complaint.

6. Before the trial Sessions Judge, P.W.1 to P.W.23 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.22 were marked and MO.1 to MO.4 were also marked.

7. P.W.1 is the victim girl. P.W.2 is the sister of P.W.1. P.W.1 was brought up by the family friend. P.W.3 is the neighbour. P.W.4 is also one of the neighbour. P.W.5/Shanthi, who had brought up P.W.1. P.W.5 and P.W.7, went along with the victim girl to the hospital wherein, for the first time, P.W.1/victim girl was found seven months pregnant.

8. P.W.13/Dr.Chandra who runs a private clinic in Gudalor, has stated that on 19.11.2016, the victim girl was accommodated by her relative, on her explanation, stated that the victim was seven months pregnant and accordingly, had issued Ex.P5/medical certificate. P.W.8/Dr.Tamilselvan, through whom Ex.P4 was marked, goes to show that when the victim girl was produced for sickness, she was diagnosed as pregnant. P.W.17/Dr.Umashankar, who had examined victim girl and issued Ex.P13/medical certificate to the effect that the P.W.1 is between 17 and 18 at the time of the inspection.

9. P.W.9/Dr.Sipranaidu, who deposed that after complaint has been given, the police accompanied the victim girl on 10.12.2006, the victim girl Priya has delivered female baby and issued the certificate. P.W.19/Dr.Tamilselvi, who had examined the victim girl after the delivery, would depose that the evidence of child birth is noticed and after the child birth, she also opined that the hymen is not intact. P.W.20, the Assistant, attached to the forensic department, Coimbatore, based upon the requisition given by the learned Judicial Magis