J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated

19.02.2020 passed in Spl.S.C.No.57 of 2018 by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, Krishnagire District.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused on the pretext of love with the victim girl, who was aged about 17 years, used to follow her and expressed his love. On 15.06.2018 at about 5.30 a.m, the appellant abducted the victim girl, under the guise of love and on promise of marriage from her lawful guardianship, with an intent to have illicit intercourse with her. He took her to his friend's house situated at Tiruppur and had committed sexual assault till 27.06.2018. Subsequently, a complaint was filed by P.W.1/mother of the victim girl before the respondent police.

3.The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.11 of 2018 for the offence under Section 366(A) IPC. On completion of the investigation, the respondent police filed a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri for the offence under Sections 366(A) IPC and 5 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereafter 'POCSO Act' for the sake of convenience]. Since the offence is against a girl child, it falls under the definition of 2(1) (d) of POCSO Act. After completing the formalities, the learned Sessions Judge taken the case on file in Spl.S.C.No.57 of 2018 and charges were framed against the accused/appellant for the aforesaid offences.

4.In order to prove the case of the prosecution before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution as many as 20 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.20 and marked 21 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. After examining the prosecution witnesses, the incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put before the accused/ appellant and questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and he denied all the incriminating circumstances as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was produced.

5.The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the materials available on record, found that the accused/appellant is guilty as follows :

(i) for offence under Section 366 IPC the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

(ii) for offence under Section 5(l) of POCSO Act which is punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentences the appellant is before this Court.

6.When the matter was taken up for hearing on 26.07.2021 and

17.08.2021, there was no representation for the appellant. Since there is non-cooperation of the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court appointed Mr.V.Perarasu as a Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant. On 13.09.2021, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.S.Suresh, learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of the appellant.

7.1 Mr.S.Suresh, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that at the time of occurrence, the victim girl was 17 years and the appellant was 23 years and they had developed love affairs. Since the appellant belongs to the member of Scheduled Caste and the victim girl is non-member of Scheduled Caste, the parents of the victim girl did not like to perform their marriage. Hence, the victim girl eloped with the appellant and had intimacy with her consent. On coming to know the said fact, the parents of the victim girl registered the complaint against the appellant. After registration of the complaint, the respondent police secured the victim girl and hand over the victim girl to her