The prosecution must prove the victim's age and circumstances of the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

1.This Criminal Appeal has been filed by Accused No.1, challenging the judgment dated 22.02.2023 in Spl.SC.No.37 of 2020 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur, by which he was convicted for the offence under Section 366 of the IPC and Section 6 (1) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced as follows:

2.(i) The case of the prosecution is that on 14.06.2020 the appellant/A1 on the promise of marriage pursuant to a love affair had kidnapped the victim girl aged 17 years and 10 months at the time of occurrence, along with his friend i.e., A2-Sathish @ Sathishkumar, from the lawful custody of her parents and committed penetrative sexual assault on 15.06.2020 thrice at another friend’s house; that thereafter the appellant/A1 abandoned the victim in his friend’s house and when the victim called him over the phone, the appellant/A1 had asked her to go back to her house as he did not wish to marry her and thus, committed the aforesaid offences.

(ii) On the complaint [Ex.P1] given by the victim [PW1] on06.08.2020 against the accused an FIR [Ex.P12] in Cr.No.16 of 2020 was registered by PW13, the Sub-Inspector of Police, on the same day at about 6.00 p.m., for the offences under Sections 366 (A) and 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Sections 5 (l) and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

(iii) PW14, the Inspector of Police took up the investigation, recorded the statement of the victim and the other witnesses and handed over the investigation to PW15, who thereafter filed the final report against the 1^st accused/appellant herein for the offence under Sections 366 (A) and 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Sections 5 (l) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and against the co-accused/A2 who was friend of the appellant/A1 under Section 366 -A of the before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur.

(iv) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with and the case was taken on file as Spl.S.C.No.37 of 2020 by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur. The trial Court framed the charges against A1 for the offences under Section 366 of the IPC and Section 6 (1) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and against A2 for the offence under (A) and Section 6 (1) r/w 17 of the POCSO Act. During the trial, when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty'.

(v) Before the trial Court, the prosecution had examined 15 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.15 and marked 14 exhibits as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14, besides one material object i.e., M.O.1 [White-coloured TATA Indica Car bearing Regn.No.TN01 AD 3255]. When the accused were questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any document on their side. The Section 164 (5) Cr.P.C. statement of the victim was marked as Ex.C1.

(vi) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, though the trial Court found the 2^nd accused not guilty of the charges levelled against him and acquitted him, held that the charges levelled against the 1^st accused as proved and convicted and sentenced him as stated in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the 1^st accused had preferred the instant appeal.

3. Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the appellant/A1 would s