JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 30.09.2016 rendered by Fast Track Court, Mahila Court, Thiruvannamalai, in S.C.No.131 of 2014.)

1. The convicted sole accused is the appellant herein.

2. This Criminal Appeal is preferred challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.131 of 2014, dated 30.09.2016, whereby, the learned Mahila Judge, Fast Track Court, has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 376(1) of IPC and imposed sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.

3. Brief facts of the case:

(a). The respondent police filed charge sheet in Crime No.18 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 417 & 376(1) of IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruvannamalai, and it was taken on file as PRC.No.17 of 2013 and thereafter, the case was committed to the Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai, in S.C.No.131 of 2014.

(b). During trial, to substantiate the case, on behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW17 were examined; Exs.P1 to P10 were marked and MO1 and MO2 were produced. On behalf of the defence, witnesses DW1 to DW4 were examined and Exs.D1 to D3 were marked.

(c). On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, has found guilty against the accused for the offence under Section 376(1) of IPC alone and convicted and sentenced him under the said Section as stated supra. However, the learned Sessions Judge has found not guilty under Section 417 IPC and acquitted him from the said charge. Aggrieved against the same, the accused has preferred this Criminal Appeal before this Court.

4. Heard Mr.V.Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel, representing for Mr.K.Balu, counsel for the appellant/accused and Mr.R.Vinoth Raja, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

5. Mr.V.Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the sole accused/appellant would contend that a false case has been foisted against the accused, since the accused was only in love with DW2 and not with PW1. PW1 is a poor lady and she is the friend of DW2. Taking advantage of the fact that DW1 (Accused) is a rich man, a false case has been foisted to extract money. The learned senior counsel would draw my attention to the medical evidence of PW15/Dr.Usha Kalyani. PW1 has stated to P.W.15 that by consent, she had sex with known person. Further, stated that the alleged complaint even if it is taken on the positive side, could only be a consensual act of two adults and there is no offence as defined under Section 375 of IPC.

6. The learned Government Advocate made submissions in support of the Judgment of the Trial Court.

7. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the victim was examined as PW1 and her mother was examined as PW2; PW3 is the brother of PW1; PW4 is the wife of PW3; PW5 is neighbour; PW6 and PW7 were turned hostile. PW8/Dr.Karthikeyan, had issued Accident Register for the victim on 02.09.2012 under Ex.P6, PW15/Dr.Usha Kalyani, had deposed regarding the fact coming into existence of Ex.P6/Accident Register recorded by Dr.Sinduja to the victim (since the said doctor has left the Government Service) and Ex.P7/Medical Examination of the victim girl by Dr.Sangeretha. PW10, PW11, PW12, PW13, PW14, PW16 and PW17 are the police witnesses, who could deposed regarding the discharge of their official duty in connection with receipt of Ex.P1/Statement given by PW1, Ex.P2/requisition given by PW1, preparation of Ex.P3/Observation Mahazar and Ex.P9/Rough Sketch, production of the accused and witnesses for the medical examination before the Doctor and filing of the final report, after completion of investigation.

8. Before the trial Court, the accused examined himself as DW1 and his lover namely, Neela was examined as DW2; independent witnesses were examined