J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated

30.03.2016 passed in S.C.No.127 of 2014 by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl, who is aged about 14 years at the time of occurrence was studying 9th standard. On 17.10.2011 at about 11.00 a.m., when the victim girl was alone at home, the accused/appellant, who is a neighbour of the victim girl, asked her to get tea for him. When the victim girl brought tea, the appellant asked her to come inside the house. Thereafter, the appellant threatened the victim girl with knife and compelled her to drink fruit juice and thereafter, she became unconscious and had committed penetrative sexual assault on her. Subsequently, he committed the same offence for more than five occasions and also threatened her not to disclose the incident to anybody.

Hence, the victim girl (P.W.1) lodged a complaint against the appellant.

3.The respondent-Police registered a case in Crime No.7 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506(ii) IPC r/w 176 Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation, the respondent police filed a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalaipet and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.9 of 2014. Since the offence is against a minor girl, the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court (Fast Track Court) Tiruppur has taken the case on file in S.C.No.127 of 2014.

After completing the formalities, the trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the offences under Section 376 (i) and 506(ii) IPC. 4.In order to prove the case of the prosecution before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution as many as 17 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.17 and also marked Exs.P1 to P22 besides two material objects were marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2. After examining the prosecution witnesses, the incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence were put before the appellant/accused and examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence as false. On the side of the defence, no oral and no documentary evidence was marked.

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 for the following offences :

(i) For the offence under Section 376 (i) IPC, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years ;

(ii) For the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentences, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.

6.1 The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the age of the victim girl was not proved by the prosecution. In the complaint, the victim girl (P.W.1) has stated that she was studying 9th standard, whereas, a copy of the record sheet produced by the prosecution shows that she studied up to 8th standard only. Further, the name of the school mentioned in the record sheet differs from the evidence of the victim girl. There are material contradictions in the evidence of the victim girl (P.W.1), which clearly show that the complainant has not come with true version. The writing and signatures found in the complaint also differs. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that before registering the complaint of the victim girl, the father of the victim girl gave a complaint and the same was not registered, which has been suppressed by the prosecution. During the cross examination, the victim girl has stated that the Police officials obtaine