The court emphasized the necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt and recognized that inconsistencies in testimony and procedural flaws led to the acquittal of the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/sole accused in S.C.No.326 of 2014 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, assailing the judgment passed by the trial court on 22.02.2018, in which he was convicted for the offence under Section 376 (1) of 'The INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860' (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for the sake of brevity and convenience) and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment and also ordered to pay the entire fine amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the victim under Section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.” for the sake of brevity and convenience]

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

2.1. P.W.1 is the victim married to P.W.2 and has a son and a daughter. On 20.12.2012 at about 10.00 p.m., P.W.1 went to attend nature’s call to a silk garden (Mulberry farm). At that time appellant/accused had followed her and put his hands on her back and when she questioned the same, the appellant threatened the victim and forcibly lifted her dress and committed rape on her. During that time, the victim raised an alarm and on hearing the same, P.W.2 came running and on seeing P.W.2, the appellant/accused escaped from the scene of occurrence.

2.2. On the next day (i.e.) on 21.12.2012, P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the respondent police to prefer a complaint but thereafter due to unavailability of the Inspector and a long wait of 2 hours, without filing complaint, they went to Government Hospital, Edapadi. P.W.2 was treated as outpatient and P.W.1 was treated and then referred to Government Hospital, Salem for further treatment where the Sub Inspector of Police, Pulampatti Police Station examined and recorded the victim’s complaint statement (ExP.1). Based on Ex-P.1, an First Information Report (F.I.R.) was registered in Crime No.242 of 2012 on 22.12.2012 for the offences under Sections 376 and 506 (i) of IPC and later the same was altered to Sections 376 (1) and Section 506(ii) of IPC. After completion of Investigation, the Inspector of Police, Edappadi filed a final report dated 25.03.2013 on 03.10.2013 under Section 376 of IPC against the appellant/accused. The case was numbered as PRC. No. 19 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sankari. A copy of all documents and materials was supplied to the appellant/accused as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and thereafter, since the offence under Section 376 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Magistrate committed the case to Principal Sessions Court, Salem and numbered as S.C.326 of 2014 and the same was made over to Mahila Court, Salem.

2.3. After hearing submissions of both sides, the learned Sessions Judge, framed charges under Sections 376 (1) and 506(ii) of IPC against the appellant/accused and when it was read over and explained to the accused/appellant, he pleaded not guilty. Hence, trial was ordered.

2.4. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined 8 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and marked Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.24. and MO-1. The appellant/accused side examined one Settu alias Sivachandran as D.W.1. After a detailed trial, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC and convicted the 4/26 appellant/accused for the offence under Section 376 (1) of IPC and sentenced him as stated supra.

2.5. Fe