JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the Judgment passed in Special S.C.No.26 of 2016 dated 12.07.2018, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, thereby convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC and Sections 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the minor victim girl fell in love with the accused. On the instigation of the accused, she eloped with the accused to Denkanikottai on 25.01.2016. They stayed in a friend's house for three days.

Thereafter, the father of the victim girl lodged a complaint.

3. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.55 of 2016 under “Girl Missing”. Thereafter, the respondent secured the victim and subjected to medical examination. Thereafter, her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The respondent filed an alteration report and altered the offences into Section 366A of IPC and Sections 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance, in Special S.C.No.26 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri.

4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to 20 and marked Exs.P1 to 22. The prosecution had also produced M.O.1. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no document was marked. On a perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2500/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. The appellant was also found guilty for the offence under Sections 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced him to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2500/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred this present appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the victim girl was examined as P.W.3. P.W.3 deposed that on her own she eloped with the accused on 25.01.2016 for the reason that her parents arranged marriage with her maternal uncle. Therefore, the accused insisted her to elope somewhere to marry her. After her consent, the accused picked her in a two wheeler and went to Denkanikottai. Thereafter, they went to Hosur. From Hosur, they travelled to Malur and stayed in the house of a friend of the accused for three days in a same room. After the complaint, the accused insisted the victim girl to have physical relationship, so that their parents will leave them as they are husband and wife. Therefore, they had physical relationship.

Thereafter, on 30.01.2016, the accused left her in Denkanikottai check post.

6. After securing the victim girl, the victim girl was subjected to medical examination and her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In such statement, revealed that she never had any sexual intercourse with the accused though they stayed for three days in a same room. She further stated that on her own she eloped with the accused. She was never kidnapped by the accused. Whereas, in her evidence before the Court, she categorically deposed that she along with the accused stayed in the house of a friend of the accused for three days and initially for first two days, he did not commit any sexual assault on her. Only on the final day, he had physical relationship with the victim, that too with her consent. In fact, she was subjected to medical examination and the Accident Register was recorded by P.W.10. The Accident Register was marked as Ex.P7. Ex.P7 also revealed that the victim eloped with one known person and there was no sexual assault by the accused. Thereafter, she was subjected to medical examination.

7. The Doctor who examined the victim was examined as P.W.13.

She deposed that minimal cong