The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroboration of the victim's testimony in cases of sexual assault, emphasizing the need for supporting evidence and the possibility of false implication.

JUDGMENT :

T. Ravindran, J.

1. The Sessions Judge, Mahalir NeethiMandram, Chennai, by judgment dated 08.08.2014 passed in S.C. No. 190 of 2013 has convicted the appellant/accused under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years also and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and under Section 417 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and directed that the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the appellant/accused to run concurrently and challenging the same, the criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the victim girl was residing opposite to the accused house and six months prior to 11.05.2010, the accused took the victim girl to his residence for the purpose of arranging the marriage and at that time, no one was present in the residence of the accused and the accused enticed the victim girl by assuring her that he would marry her and thereby, directed her to submit to his desires and though the victim girl had resisted to the overacts made by the accused, the accused forced the victim girl to have sexual intercourse with him against her will and consent and thus committed rape on her and thereby, according to the prosecution, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 IPC.

3. To sustain the prosecution case, PWs 1 to 9 were examined. Exs. P1 to P6 were marked. No Mo has been marked. On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses and the accused had denied the same and according to the accused, the case has been falsely foisted against him on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the accused, no oral and documentary evidence has been adduced and no M.O. has been marked.

4. The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai, on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the matter, proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant/accused under Sections 376 & 417 IPC as aforestated. Impugning the same, the criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused.

5. Considering the charges levelled against the accused, it is found that the prosecution has to establish that the accused had committed the offence of rape against the victim girl without her consent by forcing her to have sexual intercourse with him six months prior to 11.05.2010 at the residence of the accused by enticing her that he would marry her. In this matter, the victim girl has been examined as PW1. Now, according to the victim girl (PW1), as deposed by her, she and the accused were engaged in love for two years and their love affair is not known to her family members and further, she would state that she voluntarily got engaged in love with the accused and she was 18 years of age at that point of time and she has further proceeded to state that she had chosen to commit suicide by consuming tablets and thereby, she had been admitted in the hospital and only after the police came and enquired her, she came to know that the accused had got married with his sister's daughter on 05.05.2010 and therefore, according to her, inasmuch as the accused, during the time when they were engaged in love, had taken her to his residence and forcibly committed rape on her against her consent by assuring that he would marry her and as the accused had failed to maintain his promise and on the other hand, proceeded to marry his sister's daughter, according to PW1, the victim girl, she had been necessitated to lay the complaint Ex. P1 and it is found that as deposed by the victim girl and on a perusal of Ex. P1 complaint, the victim girl has levelled the allegations not only against the accused but also against Pra