The prosecution must prove fundamental facts of the case, and discrepancies in the victim's testimony can undermine the credibility of the evidence.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant vide judgment dated 18.09.2018 in Spl.S.C.No.34 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhi Mandram, (Fast Track Maghila Court), Vellore and acquit the appellant and direct the trial Court to refund the fine amount in the interest of justice.)

1. Four accused were tried before the Mahila Court, Vellore in Spl.S.C.No.34/2015.The first accused Manikandan, who is the appellant herein is the son of 2nd and 4th accused. The 3rd accused is the brother of first accused. The first accused was tried for offence under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC and Section 6 r/w 5(l)(n) of POCSO Act, 2012 alleging that he on 04/08/2014 at about 13.00 hrs, from Govt. Girls Hr. Sec.School, Walaja kidnapped the 15 years old minor daughter of Mr.Karunakaran, who is her lawful guardian and kept her in a house at Nallavoor, Villupuram District from 04/08/2014 to 10/11/2014 for 97 days. He seduced her and forcible had illicit intercourse with her. The accused 2 to 4 alleged to have abetted the crime of kidnapping of minor girl from lawful guardian thereby committing the offence punishable under Sections 363 r/w 109 IPC.

2. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses and marked 14 documents. On the side of the defence no witness, no document marked.

3. The trial Court considering the deposition of the victim girl and medical evidence held the charges under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 5(l)(n) of POCSO Act against A-1 proved and sentenced him for the offence under Section 366 IPC to undergo 7 years RI and fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo 1 month RI and for the offence under Section 5(l)(n) r/w 6 of POCSO Act to undergo 10 years RI and fine of Rs.2000/- in default, to undergo 2 months RI. In view of Section 71 of IPC, no separate sentence imposed for offence under Section 363 IPC.

4. Accused 2 to 4 were acquitted, since the victim girl has not incriminated them in the crime.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submitted that the appellant and the girl were in love. Her father gave a complaint during the month of June-July 2014 to the police alleging eveteasing and attempted to separate them. Since they continued the affair, a false complaint on 13/08/2014 was registered alleging his daughter was kidnapped by the accused on 04/08/2014 from her school. No one from her school was examined as witness to substantiate this allegation. The boy, who alleged to have asked the minor girl to come out of the school was not examined. The owner of the house in which the accused alleged to have been with the minor girl did not support the case of the prosecution. The defacto complainant family and the accused family were relatives. The first accused lend Rs.2,15,000/- to PW-1 by pledging his sister's jewel. To avoid repayment of the money, the minor girl was forced by PW-1 to depose against the appellant. Except the motivated evidence of PW-1 (defacto complainant) and PW-2 (minor girl), no other witnesses has corroborated the case of the prosecution.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that, the deposition of PW-1, clearly explains the reason for delay in filing the First Information Report. Soon after missing of the minor girl, suspecting the accused, PW-1 went to the house of the accused and enquired. They admitted the kidnapping and promised to trace the minor girl and hand over. Hence, he reported to the police orally and waited police taking note of the fact that the complainant and the accused are relatives, did not register First Information Report immediately. Meanwhile, the defacto complainant filed HCP before this Court. The girl was traced along with the appellant in a house at Nallavoor Village on 11/11/2014 and rescued and the appellant was arrested.

7. The girl was subjected to medical test to ascertain her virginity and age. The doctor, who examined her has ce