JUDGMENT :

(Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C, praying to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant herein in S.No.75 of 2015 by judgement dated 01.11.2016 passed by the learned District Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District and acquit the appellant from all charges.)

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant herein in S.No.75 of 2015 vide judgement dated 01.11.2016, passed by the learned District Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District and acquit the appellant from all charges.

2. On 22.12.2013, when P.W.12 was on duty at Pennagaram Police Station, Dharmapuri District, P.W.1 appeared before her and lodged a complaint to the effect that she is a staff nurse working in a hospital. She got acquainted with the accused. On 20.11.2013, her parents have gone away and on the said night, the accused came to her home and promised to marry her and against her will by forcing her had physical intercourse. Thereafter, the accused went to Hosur for employment promising to return back after a month, but he did not come back and upon contacting him by phone, he refused to marry her. Hence, the complaint.

3. On the strength of the said complaint, a case in Crime No.387 of 2013 was registered for the offences under Sections 417, 376 IPC read with Section 3(1) (xii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST Act' in short). P.W.14, thereafter took up the case for investigation and laid a charge sheet proposing the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 417, 376 IPC and 3(1) (xii) of the SC/ST Act. The case was taken on file as P.R.C.No.8 of 2015 by the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Pennagaram. After appearance of the accused and furnishing of copies, the case was committed to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, where upon the matter was taken on file as S.C.No.75 of 2015. On 10.08.2015, three charges as mentioned above under Section 417, 376 IPC and Section 3(1) (xii) of the SC/ST Act were framed and upon being questioned, the accused denied the charges and stood trial.

4. So as to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined the victim/prosecutrix as P.W.1, father of the victim as P.W.2, mother of the victim as P.W.3, one Lakshmi, Mala and Jayaraman who are the residents of Pennagaram as P.W.4 to P.W.6, the Village Administrative Officer who was a witness to the confession as P.W.7, the doctor who examined the accused and issued potency certificate as P.W.8, the doctor who examined and treated P.W.1 as P.W.9, the Forensic Expert as P.W.10, the official from the Taluk Office for issuance of community certificate to P.W.1 as P.W.11, the Sub Inspector of Police who registered the F.I.R as P.W.12, the official from the concerned Taluk Office, where the community certificate was issued to the accused as P.W.13, the Investigating Officer as P.W.14.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, the complaint lodged by P.W.1 was marked as Ex.P1, the observation mahazar as Ex.P2, the admissible portion of the confession statement as Ex.P3, the seizure mahazar as Ex.P4, the potency report of the accused as Ex.P5, the accident register copy for examination of the victim as Ex.P6, the forensic report as Ex.P7, the community certificate of the victim as Ex.P8, the First Information Report as Ex.P9, the community certificate of the accused as Ex.P10, the rough sketch as Ex.P11. There upon, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the material circumstances and adverse evidence on record and the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, no further evidence was let in on behalf of the defence.

6. The trial Court, therefore proceeded to hear the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused and by a judgement dated 01.11.2016, agreeing