J U D G M E N T

(Delivered by R.HEMALATHA, J.)

The Present appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Namakkal, against the appellant in Spl. C.C. No.3 of 2016 as detailed hereunder.

The learned Sessions Judge also ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows:

i. The victim child (P.W.1) was 16 years of age and was studying XI standard at Mallasamuthiram Government Higher Secondary school. The appellant, father of the victim child, was residing at Devanankuruchi with his family consisting of his wife Kasthuri(P.W.2), his daughter, the victim (P.W.1) and his son Gokulhari.

ii. The victim attained puberty when she was studying 6th standard and according to the victim (P.W.1), her father, the appellant, forced himself upon her and when this was objected by her, he cajoled her by saying that this is not uncommon and is happening in every house and continued to have penetrative sex with his daughter. The further deposition of the victim child was that her father used to enquire her as to whether she had her menstrual cycle every month and whenever she missed her cycle, her father used to get her tablets to make it regular. When the victim was studying VIII standard, P.W.1's mother (P.W.2) underwent hysterectomy operation in Government Hospital, Erode, and after discharge, stayed with her mother Ponnuthayee (P.W.6) at Thattankuttai for 4 months. Therefore, the appellant shifted his family to Periyanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore, and got the victim admitted in IX standard in a school over there. Even during that time, the appellant abused her daughter sexually and when the mother of the victim came back home, the appellant made his wife drink beer in order to make her sleep so that she might not know what he was doing with his daughter. After 4 or 5 years, P.W.1, realising the wrongful act of her father, threatened him that she would inform her mother about what is happening to her. In turn, the appellant threatened her with dire consequences of killing her and her mother.

iii. P.W.1 narrated the ordeal undergone by her to her relatives Tmt.Meenakshi (P.W.5) and Poovathi (P.W.4),who in turn informed Tmt.Kasthuri (P.W.2), the mother of the victim, after which, P.W.1 and P.W.2 left the house of the appellant and started living with the mother of P.W.2.

iv. P.W.1 thereafter called the childline on 17.09.2013 by dialing 1098.

Tmt.Mailambigai (P.W.7), working in District child Protection Unit, Namakkal, attended the call and enquired the child victim (P.W.1). The victim narrated all the incidents to her and sought for help. P.W.7 informed the same to Child Welfare Committee and met P.W.1 in person. Tmt.M.Vijayalakshmi (P.W.10), a team member of Childline, Namakkal, accompanied P.W.7. Both of them took P.W.1 with them and on the same day Tmt.P.Vijayalakshmi (P.W.9), Counsellor, Child Protection Unit, Namakkal, counselled P.W.1 and on the next day, i.e., 18.09.2013, P.W.7 and P.W.10 took P.W.1 to Komarapalayam Police Station, where P.W.1 lodged a written complaint (Ex.P.1) with the police against her father.

v. Thiru. Manickam (P.W.17), Special Sub Inspector of Police, Komarapalayam Police Station, received Ex.P1 from P.W.1 and registered FIR (Ex.P7) in Komarapalayam Police Station Crime No.591 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 354, 376 (2) (f) (i)

(n), 506(ii) IPC and 5(l) (m)(n) r/w 6 POCSO Act 2012.

vi. Thiru. Santhamurthy (P.W.20), Inspector of Police, Komarapalayam Police Station, took up investigation in Crime No.591/13 and went to the scene of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) and a rough sketch (Ex.P9) in the presence of the witnesses Sundararajan (P.W