The main legal point established in the judgment is that 'consent' in the context of rape requires voluntary participation in the act, and mere submission does not amount to consent.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment of the Learned Sessions Judge-cum- Mahila Court, Chinglepattu (FAC), Kancheepuram District in S.C.No.208 of 2008, dated 22.03.2012.)

The sole accused in Crime No.15 of 2005 on the file of the All Women Police Station, Poonamalee, has preferred this appeal, aggrieved by the Judgment dated 22.03.2012 in and by which he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC., and was imposed with the sentence to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months.

2. On 08.07.2005 when P.W.9/Geetha, the Inspector of Police was on duty at All Women Police Station, Poonamallee, P.W.1/Perumayee appeared before her and lodged a complaint to the effect that her elder daughter aged 15 years was at home after being a drop out from the school after studying 8th std. For the past one week, she was looking tired and was sleeping all the time, therefore when she enquired and was taken to Jeevan Hospital, it was realised that she was three months pregnant. She further informed that one Ramesh proposed his love to her. One day, when she went to the fields to attend her nature calls, at the time the said Ramesh compelled her and had physical intercourse with her. The intercourse continued for many days. Thereafter, when P.W.1 and their family members went to the said accused house and demanded him to marry the victim, he refused to do so, and therefore, this complaint.

3. On the strength of the said complaint, P.W.9 registered the case in Crime No.15 of 2005 for the offence under Section 376 of IPC., and took up the matter for investigation and laid a final report before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonmallee, in P.R.C.No.424 of 2005 proposing the accused guilty of the offence under Section 376 of IPC. After furnishing the copies under Section 207 of theCriminal Procedure Code, the case was committed to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu and the case was taken on file in S.C.No.208 of 2008 and it was made over to the Trial Court. Thereafter, the Trial Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on both sides and the charge under Section 376 of IPC., was framed. The accused denied the charge and stood trial.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges examined the de-facto complainant, Permumayee, the mother of the victim as P.W.1; the victim girl as P.W.2; One Panchamma and one Nalini as P.W.3 and P.W.6; One Ravichandran, the Headmaster of the school in whichthe victim girl was studying as P.W.4; Doctor Geetha, who examined the victim as P.W.5; Doctor Srinivasan, who examined the accused and issued potency certificate as P.W.7; Vanaja, the Expert in Forensic Laboratory, Chennai, who conformed the DNA report of the accused as the father of the child born to the victim, as P.W.8; and the Investigating Officer was examined as P.W.9.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, the complaint given by P.W.1 was marked as Ex.P-1; the school Transfer Certificate of the victim was marked as Ex.P-2; the Accident Register copy of the hospital was marked as Ex.P-3; The Medical Report of the accused was marked as Ex.P-4; The Age Certificate of the victim was marked as Ex.P-5; The Requisition Letter, to send the victim girl, and the child born to the victim child, for DNA test was marked as Ex.P-6; The DNA test report was marked as Ex.P-7; The printed First Information Report was marked as Ex.P-8; The Rough Sketch was marked as Ex.P-9; The Requisition Letter, to send the victim for medical examination was marked as Ex.P-10; The Requisition Letter, to send the accused for medical examination was marked as Ex.P-11. The Biological Report from the DNA test was marked as Ex.P-12. When the accused was questioned on the material evidence and incriminating circumstances on record as per Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused deni