JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to call for the entire records in connection with the S.C.No.377 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court (Mahalir Neethimandram), Chennai, and set aside the Judgment dated 21.02.2018.)

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him vide judgment dated 21.02.2018 in S.C.No.377 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court (Mahalir Neethimandram), Chennai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3 (i) It is the case of the prosecution that the victim who was aged about 17 years at the relevant point of time and the accused were neighbours; that from October 2011, they were in a romantic relationship and the accused had repeated sexual intercourse with the victim on the promise that he would marry her; that during December 2012, the victim became pregnant; and that PW2 gave a complaint [Ex.P1] to PW12 the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR [Ex.P14] in Cr.No.5 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 417, 376, 294(b) and 506(ii) of the IPC.

(ii) PW13, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation, examined all the relevant witnesses and subjected the victim to medical examination by the Doctor [PW10]. Thereafter, PW13 handed over the investigation to PW14, who continued the investigation and filed a final report against the accused for the offences under Sections 417, 294(b), 506(ii) of the IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, [hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act'] before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court (Mahalir Neethimandram), Chennai.

(iii) The case was numbered as S.C.No.377 of 2014 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court (Mahalir Neethimandram), Chennai. On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with. The trial Court framed charges under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, against the accused and when questioned, the appellant pleaded 'not guilty'.

(iv) To prove the case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.14 and marked 16 exhibits as Exs.P1 to P16. When the accused was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The accused neither examined any witnesses, nor marked any documents.

(v) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found that the prosecution had established the case beyond reasonable doubt and held the accused guilty of the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo 10 years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo further period of six months simple imprisonment. Hence, the accused has preferred the appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence.

4. Heard, Mr. C.S.S. Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, and Mr. E. Raj Thilak learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.

5. Mr. C.S.S. Pillai, learned counsel for the accused/appellant submitted that though according to the prosecution, the victim was born on 20.03.1996, she stated before the Doctor and in her complaint that she was 19 years old; that the prosecution has not marked the original school leaving certificate and had not examined the Headmistress who had allegedly issued the Transfer Certificate and hence, the age of the victim has not been conclusively established by the prosecution.

(ii) The learned counsel further submitted that PW1 mother of the victim and the PW2 victim herself had stated that the complaint was given only because the accused refused to marry the victim. Subsequently, the victim married the accused. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for acquittal of the accused/appellant.

6 (i). Learned Additional Public Prosecutor per con