JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(ii) of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment dated 03.02.2017 passed in Special C.C.No.61/2014 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Coimbatore, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 3(a) r/w 4 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.)

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

2. Convicted sole accused is the appellant herein. The appellant is in custody. It is a jail appeal.

3. This criminal appeal is filed to set aside the judgment dated 03.02.2017, passed by the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore in Spl.C.C.No.61/2014, in convicting the appellant herein under Section 3(a) r/w 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) and sentencing him to undergo ten years and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default simple imprisonment for three months.

4. The respondent police filed a final report after the investigation against the accused in Crime No.18/2013, for the offence under Section 3(a) r/w 4 of the Act, stating that the accused/Rajasekar, running a Gold Smith Work Shop in front of the house of victim girl. The accused and victim girl were friends. While so, victim girl is aged about 16 years, five months prior to 30.12.2013, one day at 06.00 p.m., when the victim girl was alone in her house situated in Door No.4, Kempatti Colony, 6th street, Coimbatore, the accused came there and committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl, on the promise of marrying her and thereafter, on many occasions committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl, due to which, she became pregnant and subsequently, delivered a female baby on 11.04.2014.

5. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.13 were examined and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. No material object marked by the prosecution.

6. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Special Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Coimbatore has come to the conclusion that the charge under Section 3(a) r/w 4 of the Act, is proved and accordingly, laid the sentence as stated supra and hence the appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/convicted accused would contend that; the lower Court has failed to appreciate evidence of P.W.7/Dr.Murugalakshmi that by consent of P.W.1, one identified person had sexual intercourse and hence, P.W.4 was not raped.

(ii) During the course of argument, a consent affidavit was filed by the victim girl stating that the appellant had already got married and have two children and she expressed her willingness to compound the offence.

8. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) made submission in support of the judgment of the Sessions Court.

9. The appellant was charged for the offence under Section 3(a) r/w Section 4 of the Act. To substantiate the charges, prosecution has examined, P.W.1/victim girl who is the daughter of P.W.2/Dhanalakshmi, Nanthakumar is the brother of P.W.1, all of them are working in Gold Smith Work Shop.

10. P.W.5/Dr.Kumutham Rajendran who examined the victim girl at the first instance on 20.12.2013 in her clinic, has found that P.W.1 was in six month pregnancy. P.W.7/Dr.Murugalakshmi, has examined P.W.1 on 30.12.2013 at the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore and confirmed that P.W.1 was in 6-7 months pregnancy and she has issued the AR Copy/Ex.P.8. So, it is clear from the medical evidence of P.W.7/Doctor who had medically examined the victim, categorically found the rupture of hymen of the victim girl and her pregnancy at the time of medical examination. The above fact is supported by other attending circumstances and evidence adduced by prosecution through the victim girl which is supported by her mother, uncle and aunty. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence for the occurrence but the victim girl categorically depose