JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Dharmapuri dated 14.02.2019 in Spl.C.C.No.25 of 2017.

2. The respondent police registered the case against the appellant in Crime No.351/2016 for the offence under Section 366A of IPC and Section 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. After investigation, police laid the charge sheet before the Special Judge, Mahila Court, Dharmapuri. Since the offence is against women, especially child, it falls within the meaning of POCSO Act, the learned Special Judge taken the charge sheet on file in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2017 and after completing formalities, framed the charge for the offence u/s.366A IPC, Section 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Section 17 r/w.16 of POCSO Act.

3. After framing charges, during the trial, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 20 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 20, 19 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19. But no material object was exhibited. After completing the prosecution witnesses, incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put before the accused.

He denied it as false and pleaded not guilty. No oral or documentary evidence is produced by the defence.

4. After completing trial and hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the learned Special Judge has come to the conclusion that the appellant has committed the charged offences and convicted him for the offence u/s.366A IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment and also convicted u/s.10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and sentenced him to undergo two years R.I., and pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default 3 months Simple Imprisonment and also convicted u/s.17 r/w.16 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo 10 years Rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has filed the present appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is no way connected with the offence. Actually the victim girl had fall on love with Tamilarasan a juvenile. The victim girl eloped with the said Tamilarasan and this appellant is no way connected with the offence. Actually, the parents of the victim girl proposed to give the elder sister of the victim girl to the said juvenile. However, the juvenile fell in love with the victim. No eye witnesses have been examined in this case to show that the appellant kidnapped the victim girl and made arrangement for marriage between Tamilarasan and the victim girl. There is no documentary evidence to show that he arranged marriage between Tamilarasan and the victim girl and there is no evidence to show that he arranged a house to make them to stay separately. There is no evidence to show that the victim girl was subjected to sexual intercourse. Since the prosecution failed to prove its case and to link the role played by the appellant, the trial court failed to consider that only Tamilarasan and the victim girl are the close relatives from the childhood, both fell in love with each other and the victim girl eloped with Tamilarasan.

Subsequently, they got married and living together happily. However, the appellant has not committed any offence either under Section 376 A IPC or under 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act or under Section 17 r/w.16 of POCSO Act. The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence and simply convicted only based on the evidence of the victim. Accordingly, there is no corroboration. Therefore, it is unsafe to convict the appellant without any corroborative evidence. In this case, there is no evidence to connect the appellant for the said offences. He has