The central legal point established in the judgment is the immateriality of the minor victim's consent in a rape case and the lack of requirement for corroboration in cases of sexual assault when the victim's testimony is credible and trustworthy.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment of convicting the appellant for the offence alleged under Section 5 (1) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012. The accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in dafault to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of three months passed in Special S.C.No.7 of 2015 dated 16.08.2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Dharmapuri and consequently thereby allow this Criminal Appeal.)

1. The accused in Special S.C.No.7 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri District, is the appellant in the criminal appeal.

2. The Appellant/Accused has been prosecuted by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Pennagaram, Dharmapuri District for having caused aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl on 23.10.2014 and 17.01.2015 punishable offence under Sections 5 (1) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 506 (i) of IPC.

3. In the trial Court the prosecution examined 16 witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.16) and filed 18 documents (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P18) and two material objects (M.O.1 and M.O.2). On the side of the appellant/accused neither the evidence nor the document was marked.

4. The trial Court on considering the prosecution evidence found that the appellant/accused was not guilty under Section 506 (i) of IPC and acquitted him. However, convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused under Section 5 (1) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, as follows:

Challenging the said conviction and sentences, the appellant/accused/ P.Muthuraj @ Pavadai has preferred this appeal.

5. The case of the prosecution is that, the victim girl (Name not mentioned) (P.W.1) residing at Karakur village with their parents. She studied up to 9th standard. Thereafter, stopped the school education. Their parents were daily wages, one younger brother was studying in School. The appellant/ Accused/ P.Muthuraj @ Pavadai was known to the victim girl. The date of birth of the victim girl is 15.12.2000. At the time of occurrence her age was about 15. In the year 2014, the next day was Deepawali while the victim girl was in her house, the appellant/accused called her as though her father asked him to bring the victim girl. Believing that the victim girl went along with the appellant/accused near the shop, but, she did not found her father. Hence, she questioned the appellant/accused, for that the appellant/accused informed that her father is at Coconut thope and to bring her at Coconut thope. At the coconut thope the appellant/accused taken her in a bush and raped her two times and also threatened that nobody will marry you and whenever he called she should come with him. The accused met her again on 17.01.2015 during the pongal festival while the victim girl was playing with her friends, the appellant/accused approached her and again taken her somewhere else and raped her, she did not return to home. On the next day 18.01.2016 she came to home, her father Raja (P.W.3), Mother Manjula (P.W.4) asked her about her absence she did not reply but she was seemed to be very tired. Therefore, they did not further proceed her, the next day the victim girl went to Sithan Shop (P.W.6) purchased rat poison and consumed it. In consequence she vomited immediately, she was admitted at hospital. On enquiry, her father came to knowledge about the rape committed by the appellant/accused. Hence, Raja (P.W.3) gave the complaint (Ex.P.2) at All Women Police Station, Pennagram.

6