JUDGMENT :

R. PONGIAPPAN, J.

1. This present criminal appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence dated 18.05.2016 passed in S.C. No. 366 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Mahila Court, Madurai.

2. The appellant is arrayed as first accused in the above referred case and the Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are his parents. They stood charged for the offence under Sections 376 and 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused denied all the charges and opted for trial. Therefore, they were put on trial on the charges.

3. After full-fledged trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai, found the appellant/first accused guilty for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and accordingly, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment. In respect to the accused No. 2 and 3, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahila court, Madurai, has acquitted them from all the charges. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the appellant/first accused is before this Court with the present Criminal Appeal.

4. For the sake of convenience, the appellant hereinafter is called as accused.

5. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

(i) The accused and the prosecutrix are residing in the same village. Previous to the occurrence, both were fell in love and the same was continued for the period of one year. In the evening hours at around 6.00 p.m. they regularly met and discussed the other things. When at the time, the prosecutrix requested the accused to marry her, the accused made promise to marry her, but at the same time the accused made demand to fulfill his lust. Consequentially, on 07.05.2009 at around 7.00 p.m. in the vasu garden, the accused forcibly committed sexual assault on the prosecutrix and thereby the prosecutrix became pregnant. Thereafter, on 24.07.2009, when at the time the prosecutrix requested the accused to marry her, the accused refused for the said proposal. However, he requested the victim girl to abort the foetus. In this regard, he threatened the victim girl as if the same is disclosed to any others, he would kill her. In the mean time, when the parents of the victim girl requested the second and third accused, who are the parents of the accused for performing the marriage between the victim girl and the accused, they demanded 10 sovereigns of gold and Rupees one lakh as dowry. Even in the panchayat held in the village, the accused refused to marry the victim girl. Hence, PW-1 has lodged the complaint under Ex.P1 before the respondent police.

(ii) PW-9 R. Lakshmi the then Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirupparankundram, on 28.07.2009 received the complaint from PW-1 and registered the case in Crime No. 26 of 2009 under Sections 376, 506 (i) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The printed FIR was marked as Ex.P7. After the registration of FIR, she arrested the accused and sent for remand. She visited the scene of occurrence and in the presence of PW-3 Dhavamani and PW-4 Raja, prepared an Observation Mahazer under Ex.P2. She drew the Rough Sketch and the same has been marked as Ex.P3. She examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. She submitted an application to the Jurisdictional Court for medical examination to the victim girl and to the accused.

(iii) Consequentially, PW-10 Kayalvizhi the then Head constable, All Women Police Station, Thirupparankundram, produced the victim girl before PW-7 for medical examination, wherein, PW-7 Dr. Indirani, Senior Assistant Professor attached with Madurai Government Hospital, on 29.07.2009 at around 12.40 hours examined the victim girl and issued the certificate under Ex.P4 stating that the victim girl is found pregnant and in otherwise there is no contusions and abrasions found in the body of the victim girl.

(iv) Similarly PW-8 Dr. Natarajan, th