The evidence of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness, and minor contradictions should not undermine the overall reliability of the prosecution case.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the judgment dated 15.09.2016 made in C.A.No.126 of 2006 on the file of the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District thereby modifying the order of conviction dated 22.05.2006 made in Sessions Case No.25 of 2002 on the file of the learned III Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari (Trainee District Judge).

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by judgment dated 15.09.2016 made in C.A.No.126 of 2006 on the file of the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District by modifying the order of conviction dated 22.05.2006 made in Sessions Case No.25 of 2002 on the file of the learned III Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari (Trainee District Judge).

2. The case of the prosecution is that when the victim who was aged about 13 years was reaching home, the petitioner used to tease her. While being so on 02.09.2000 at about 06.30 p.m., when the victim was returned to her house after taking bath in the Palayar river, which is nearby to her house, the petitioner/accused intercepted her and gagged her mouth by his right hand and dragged by force to the Aundikonar Vilai Compound and committed rape on her under palm tree.

3. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent police registered an FIR in Crime No.495 of 2000 for the offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of Eve Teasing Act 1988. The respondent police, after completing the investigation, has filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court for the offence under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of Eve Teasing Act 1988.

4. In order to bring the charges to prove, the prosecution had examined 8 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and 14 documents were exhibited as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. The prosecution had also produced one material objects as M.O.1. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no document was marked.

5. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 376 IPC and acquitted the petitioner from the charge under Section 4 of Eve Teasing Act and he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for the period of 7 years. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court though confirmed the conviction for the offence under Section 376 IPC, reduced the sentence from 7 years to 4 years. Hence the present revision.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Doctor, who treated the victim, categorically deposed that the victim did not have any injuries on her private part and no such evidence to show that she was raped by the petitioner. The prosecution has also failed to recover any material from the victim in order to prove that the petitioner had committed rape on her. He would further submit that the petitioner had fell in love with the victim girl and in order to separate the petitioner and the victim, a false complaint has been lodged as against the petitioner and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would submit that in order to prove its case for the offence under Sections 376 of IPC, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and marked 14 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 and also produced one material object as M.O.1. The victim categorically deposed that the petitioner committed rape on her. Therefore, the victim evidence is the best evidence in order to prove the charges. Admittedly, the victim was minor at the time of the alleged occurrence. Therefore, the Courts below had rightly convicted the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this revision.

8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials av