JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the order of conviction and sentence made in S.C.No.28 of 2014 by the Sessions and Mahila Fast Track Court, Tiruvannamalai, dated 07.01.2016.)

1. The convicted sole accused is the appellant herein.

2. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the order of conviction and sentence made in S.C.No.28 of 2014, by the Sessions and Mahila Fast Track Court, Tiruvannamalai, dated 07.01.2016.

3. Brief facts of the case:

(a). The respondent police had registered a case in Crime No. 6 of 2013 against the appellant/accused and his parents for the alleged offence under Sections 376, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC and filed a charge sheet in PRC.No.1 of 2014. The said case has been committed to learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai, and it was taken on file in S.C.No.28 of 2014.

(b).During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution PW1 to PW14 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. On behalf of the appellant/accused Ex.D1 was marked.

(c).After the elaborate trial the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, by her Judgment dated 07.01.2016, has acquitted A2 & A3 (parents of the accused) for the alleged offence under Sections 376, 294(b) & 506(i) of IPC and convicted the appellant/accused alone for the alleged offences under Section 376 of IPC and imposed sentence for ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

(d).Aggrieved against the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

4. Heard both the respective learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that

(1). there is an inordinate delay of seven days in filing FIR ;

(2). the version of PW1 in the witness box is different from the statement made in FIR; new statement of facts were spoken to by PW1 in the witness box and hence, the evidence of PW1 ought to have been rejected;

(3). it is only with consent of the prosecuterix the accused had intercourse and relied upon Ex.D1/reference slip given by PW8/Doctor for referring PW1 for further medical examination for the sexual assault, therein, it is mentioned that the accused and PW1 had sexual intercourse for more than 100 times and hence, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused could contend that it is consent and not a rape as denied under Section 375 of IPC. He would further contend that the prosecuterix/PW1 known the consequences of the physical relationship and hence, she was continue to have physical relationship for more than 100 times.

(4).As per the statement of PW1 and PW2/Mother of PW1, the appellant’s father has refused to perform the marriage of PW1 with the appellant/accused and hence, the prosecuterix made allegation against the parents of the appellant/accused alone and not against the appellant/accused.

6. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused relied upon the following decisions:

(i) Crl.A.No.1443 of 2018 - Dr.Dhruvaram Muralidhar Sonar Vs. The State of Maharashtra;

(ii) 2021 LW (Crl) 95 -Ramesh Vs. State represented by All Women Police Station, Panruti, Cuddalore.

7(a). On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the respondent police had filed a charge sheet against A1 along with his parents A2 & A3 for the alleged offence under Sections 376, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC. After the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, has acquitted A2 & A3 (parents of A1) from those charges and also acquitted the accused only for the charge under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC and laid the conviction against the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 376 of IPC only and imposed the sentence as stated supra.

7(b). To prove the charge, on the side of the prosecution PW1 to PW14 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked; on behalf of the defence Ex.D1/refence slip given by PW8