JUDGMENT :

(The case has been heard through video conference)

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 12.02.2021 in Spl.S.C.No.45 of 2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO Cases) Cuddalore.

2. The respondent police registered the case in Crime No.78 of 2014 against the appellant and three others for the offence under Sections 363, 365 IPC. After completing the investigation, the respondent police laid the charge sheet before the Mahila Court, Cuddalore, as against the appellant/A1 for the offence under Section 366 IPC and Section 5(l) punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and as against the accused 2 to 4 for the offence under Section 17 punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act and the learned Sessions Judge, taken the charge sheet on file in Spl.S.C.No.4 of 2019. Subsequently, after establishment of the POCSO Court, the case was transferred to the Special Court (POCSO Cases) Cuddalore, and renumbered as Spl.S.C.No.45 of 2019 and the learned Special Judge, after completing the formalities, framed the charges against the appellant/A1 for the offence under Section 366 IPC and Section 5(l) punishable under Section 6 of POCSO and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and as against the accused 2 to 4 framed charges for the offence under section 17 read with 6 of POCSO Act.

3. After framing the charges, in order to prove the case of the prosecution during trial, on the side of the prosecution as many as 9 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and 11 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.11 and no material object was exhibited.

4. After examining the prosecution witnesses, incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put before the appellant by questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, the appellant denied the same as untrue and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was produced.

5. On completion of trial and hearing the arguments advanced on either side and considering the materials, the trial Court acquitted A2 to A4 for the offence under Section 17 read with 6 of POCSO Act and A1/the present appellant was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, however, he was convicted for the offence under Section 366 IPC and also Section 5(l) punishable under Section 6 of POCSO and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 366 IPC and also sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence 5 (l) which is punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act. Challenging the said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal before this Court.

6. Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though the respondent police had issued C.S.R No.53 of 2014 dated 31.10.2014 based on the earlier complaint of the defacto complainant, neither the complaint nor the copy of C.S.R. was produced before the Court by the prosecution which is nothing but suppression of earlier happenings by the prosecution. Further, the learned Judicial Magistrate erred in ignoring the statement given by the victim/P.W.2 before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which, the victim/P.W.2 herself has clearly stated that she was in love with the appellant and she had voluntarily left home and requested the appellant to take her to somewhere else since a marriage proposal with one Prakash was going on. Further, the evidence of P.W.2 would clearly show that the appellant never compelled or seduced the victim/P.W.2 to come along with him. Therefore, the offence under Section 366 IPC would not attract and the conviction for the offence under Section 366 IPC is not s