JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as against the conviction and sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment each for the offence under Sections 366(A) IPC and 376 IPC; a sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment imposed for the offence under Section 506 (ii) IPC; and a sentence of 1 year rigorous imprisonment imposed for the offence under Section 342 IPC as against the appellant/accused by the learned Sessions Judge of the Mahila Court at Chennai, in S.C.No.43 of 2013, dated 15.12.2014 and to set aside the same.)

1. The convicted sole accused is the appellant herein and he has preferred this criminal appeal as against the judgment dated 15.12.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai, in S.C.No.43 of 2013, wherein, he was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences under Sections 366(A), 506(ii), 342 and 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 366 (A) IPC; sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC; sentenced to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 342 IPC; and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 IPC. The above sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The respondent police has filed a final report in Crime No.3010/2011 alleging that the accused has committed the offences under Sections 506(ii), 336, 366(A), 342 and 376 of IPC. The case has been taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.XVII, Egmore, as P.R.C.No.128 of 2012 and the case was committed to the Sessions Mahila Court, Chennai as S.C.No.43 of 2013.

3. Before the learned Sessions Judge, similar set of charges were framed.

4. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 19; marked documents Exs.P.1 to P.30 and produced M.Os.1 to 6. The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances and he denied his complicity. On behalf of the accused, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

5. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai, had acquitted the appellant/accused under Section 336 IPC and convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. Hence, this criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused.

6. Mr.P.Samivel, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant/accused contended that P.Ws.1 to 5 are only interested witnesses and the learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider the same and committed an error in believing the version of those witnesses. The learned Legal Aid Counsel further contended that the room under Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 were not booked in the name of the appellant/accused and not signed by the accused and the prosecution has not proved that the signatures found in Ex.P.7-Register Report of M.R.Lodge and Ex.P.8-Room rent receipt for staying at Madurai Ezhur Saviar Samudhaya Maaligai, are that of the accused. The Doctor has tested the accused and has given an opinion under Ex.P.13-Certificate of potential test of the accused, which reveals that there is no external injury with penis of the accused and there was no opinion given to the effect that the accused had sexual intercourse with P.W.2 and hence, the learned Legal Aid Counsel prayed for setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge by allowing this criminal appeal.

7. Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) made submissions in support of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and prayed for dismissal of this criminal appeal.

8. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

9. Points for consideration:

(1) Whether the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai, is sustainable in law? and

(2) Whether the sentence a