The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and corroborated evidence in grave charges, emphasizing the degree of proof necessary in such cases.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment passed in S.C.No.301 of 2011 dated 05.03.2013 on the file of Mahila Court, Chennai.)

1. This appeal against conviction for offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. The appellant was sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months S.I.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 28.01.2010, at about 10.30 a.m., the appellant herein called P.W.1 to his house and had forcibly intercourse with her. P.W.4, who is the sister of P.W.1 came in search of her sister and enquired the appellant. P.W.4 noticed the appellant found perturbed and disturbed. She saw her sister P.W.1 inside the accused house in disorderliness. P.W.1 informed that, she was raped by the appellant. Immediately, P.W.4 called her mother (P.W.2) and thereafter, along with her cousin (P.W.3) went to the police station and gave complaint (Ex.P.1). The police took up the investigation, arrested the appellant on the same day. The wearing dress of the victim and the accused were collected and same were sent for Forensic lab for test. Both the P.W.1 and the appellant were sent for medical examination.

3. After completion of investigation, final report was filed for offence under Section 376 of I.P.C.

4. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and marked 17 Exhibits, 2 Material Objects were also marked.

5. Aggrieved by the Judgement of conviction and sentence, the appeal is filed on the ground that the Court below failed to take note of the contradictions and falsehood in the evidence relied by the prosecution. It is submitted by the Learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.1, the victim girl or her sister (P.W.4), who alleged to have seen the accused and her sister together in her house of the accused had not said anything about the forcible confinement of P.W.1 in the house and her hands were tied by the appellant. For the first time, P.W.1, in the cross examination had deposed that, the appellant tied her hands and legs, whereas, in the complaint as well as the chief examination of P.W.1 to P.W.4, there is no whisper about this incident. In the complaint, it is stated that, P.W.4 went to the house of the appellant on hearing the weeping sound, the complaint was given by P.W.2, the mother of the victim. She came to the house after P.W.4 informed about the occurrence. Whereas, P.W.4, in her chief examination had said that when she saw her sister inside the house of the accused, her sister was found disorderliness and she enquired her sister, she informed that the accused raped her.

6. P.W.1 the victim girl, in the chief examination had deposed that when she went to the ration shop, the accused gagged her mouth and took her inside his house and had intercourse with her. The embellishment and improvement in the evidence had come out during the cross examination and the contradictions being very obvious which clearly creates doubt about the veracity of the evidence.

7. According to the Learned Counsel for the appellant, appellant and P.W.1 are major and it was consensual sex voluntarily. They had intercourse only when the appellant mother did not agreed for their marriage, false complaint was given to the respondent police. Further, the Learned Counsel submitted that the discrepancy in the colour of the garments (panties) of P.W.1 not explained by the witnesses for the prosecution. Being very crucial evidence, the discrepancy in the colour of the panties, makes the case of the prosecution unbelievable.

8. The admission by P.W.3 and P.W.4 that P.W.1 earlier got conceived and later got aborted, not taken note by the trial Court to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 376 of I.P.C.

9. Per contra, the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent submitted that the victim girl has narrated that she was subjected to intercourse against her wish and by force. When P.W.4, the sister of the victim girl came to the hous