JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the judgment passed on 11.12.2018 in Spl.Sessions Case No.27/2018 on the file of Mahila Court, Cuddalore.

2. The respondent police registered the case against the appellant in Crime No.4/2018 for the offence under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter called as “POCSO Act”) Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, Section 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC. After investigation, the respondent police laid charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore. The Mahila Court, after taking the case on file in Spl.S.C.No.27/2018, framed charges against the appellant for the offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act, Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, Section 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC and the same have been read over and explained to the appellant/accused who denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

3. After framing charges, in order to prove the case, on the side of the Prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 9 have been examined, Exhibits P.1 to P.11 have been marked. When the appellant/accused has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the incriminating materials available in evidence against him, he denied it as false.

4. After closing the prosecution witnesses, on the side of defence, no oral or documentary evidence was let in. After completing the trial and arguments, the learned Sessions Judge held that the appellant is found not guilty for the charges under Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, Section 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC. However, the Sessions Judge held that the appellant is found guilty under Section 6 of POCSO Act and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years and pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- in default, the appellant/accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years.

5. Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the appellant/accused filed the present criminal appeal before this court.

6. (a) The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has not committed any offence either under POCSO Act or under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act or under Section 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC. At the time of occurrence, the age of the victim girl was above 18 years. She already completed 18 years and that at the time of the filing the complaint, the age of the victim girl was 22 years and she had live-in relationship with the appellant on her own consent. There was a live-in relationship between the appellant and the victim. Since the victim completed 18 years, none of the charges framed against the appellant was made out. The prosecution failed to establish the case.

(b) The victim girl itself has stated before the Magistrate in the statement recorded u/s.164 Cr.P.C., that she voluntarily lived with the appellant and she already completed the age of 18 years. Further he would submit that though the prosecution recorded the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C from the victim, they have not marked the said document before the court. Therefore, the appellant has filed application to receive additional document i.e., Section 164(5) Cr.P.C., Statement of victim recorded by Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chidambaram. The learned counsel submits that the said document clearly reveals that the appellant has not committed any offence.

(c) Further, he would submit that the prosecution has not proved the age of the victim. The doctor from the Radiology Department, who examined the victim, issued certificate that she is aged between 18 to 20 years. Therefore, the age of the victim was not established by the prosecution and the victim has got the copy of the birth certificate, however the same was not marked before the trial court and omitted to be marked. If the correct birth certificate of the victim is produced before the court, it will clearly prove t