J U D G M E N T

This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence dated

13.03.2014, made in S.C.No.27 of 2013, on the file of the learned District Sessions Judge [Mahila Court], Pudukkottai.

2.The appellant is the sole accused. He stood charged for the offence under Sections 90 read with 376(1) and 417 read with 415 I.P.C. After full- fledged trial, the learned District Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. The trial Court acquitted the accused under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the remaining charges.

3.Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.

4.The case of the prosecution is as follows:-

(i) P.W.2 is the victim girl/prosecutrix in this case. P.W.1 –

Kumaran is her father. Both of them are doing Coolie work in their Village. The victim girl was working in a Rice Mill situated in her Village, in which, the accused was also working as a Labour. Before the occurrence, after seeing the abnormal size of the abdomen, P.W.1 questioned P.W.2 as to what had happened, for which, P.W.2 said that she had been raped by the accused. Immediately, after knowing the same, P.W.1 requested the accused to marry the victim girl, for which, the accused refused to marry her. Hence, P.W.1 lodged a complaint under Ex.P.1 before the Karaiyur Police Station.

(ii) On receipt of the said complaint, P.W.11 – Karthika, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Karaiyur Police Station, registered a case against the accused in Crime No.46 of 2010 under Section 376 I.P.C. After registration of the case, a copy of the F.I.R. was handed over to P.W.12 - M.Gunasekaran, the then Inspector of Police, Karaiyur Police Station, for investigation. He visited the scene of occurrence and in the presence of witnesses, he prepared an Observation Mahazar under Ex.P.2. He drew the Rough Sketch and the same has been marked as Ex.P.8. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He arrested the accused and sent him to remand. On 27.04.2010, P.W.12 submitted an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, wherein he prayed to conduct medical examination to the accused as well as to the victim girl.

(iii) In turn, in view of the proceedings issued by the Court, P.W.7 –

Dr.Lakshmi Priya examined the accused and on examination, after taking X- ray, she determined the age of the accused as between 20 and 25 years. She issued an age certificate under Ex.P.3.

(iv) Similarly, P.W.8 – Dr.Rayappan Kumar attached with the Government Hospital, Pudukkottai, examined the accused and issued a certificate under Ex.P.4 stating that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is incapable of performing sexual intercourse.

(v) Further, P.W.9 – Dr.Hyrunnisha attached with the Government Raniyar Hospital examined the victim girl and found the following symptoms:-

''O/E. Conscious, Oriented, BP : 110/80, PR:

88/mt.

CVS / RS – NAD PA : Uterus 28 – 30 weeks not acting FH good PV : No dilatations, No show USG : Single live inter uterine and gestation 29 weeks EDD : 14.07.10''

In this regard, she issued a certificate under Ex.P.5.

(vi In continuation of investigation, P.W.10 – Rajendran, the then Inspector of Police, Karaiyur Police Station, examined the Doctors and recorded their statements. He altered the Section of law as 376(1) I.P.C. and forwarded the said report [Ex.P.6] to the Court. After concluding the investigation, he filed a final report as the accused is liable to be convicted under Sections 90, 470, 420 and 376(1) I.P.C.

5.From the above materials, the learned District Sessions Judge [Mahia Court], Pudukkottai, framed charges under Sections 90 read with 376(1) I.P.C. and 417 read with 415 I.P.C. The accused denied the same as false, hence, he was put on trial. In order to prove their case, on the side of the prosecution, 12 witnesses h