IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date of Reserving Order Date of Pronouncing Order

28.09.2021 06.10.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN Crl.A.No.380 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.8243 of 2017 Illyas .. Appellant Vs.

The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Vaniyambadi. .. Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the judgment of the Sessions Case in S.C.No.199 of 2011 on the file of the Mahalir Needhimandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Vellore, dated 10.05.2017 and set aside the conviction and sentence.

For Appellant : Mr. Durai Kannan, Legal Aid Counsel For Respondent : Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate

J U D G M E N T

The matter is heard through "Video Conference".

2. Convicted sole accused is the appellant herein. The appellant is in custody. It is a jail appeal.

3. The criminal appeal is filed against the judgment in S.C.No.199 of 2011 dated 10.05.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court) Vellore, convicting the appellant for offence under (1) Section 365 IPC sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo further one month simple imprisonment; (ii) Section 366 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo further one month simple imprisonment; (iii) Section 376(2) (f) IPC (as then existing provision) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment; and (iv) Section 506(ii) IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment.

4. The case of the prosecution is that

4(i) the date of occurrence is 11.09.2010 (prior to POCSO Act). The respondent filed charge sheet alleging that on 11.09.2010, at about 05.30 p.m., at Nethaji Nagar North, while the victim child Jansi (a) Arippa was playing in the play ground, the accused with intention of committing rape, kidnapped the above said victim child and took her to Jamit-e-islam, an Islamic school building under the pretext that her father was calling her. and under the same pretext, the accused secretly and wrongfully confined her in the said dilapidated building where he removed her dresses and used criminal force, beaten up her and in furtherance, he committed rape upon her and subsequently with the intention to prevent the disclosure of the crime, he criminally intimidated the victim child that if she reveals the incident to anybody, he would do away with her. Therefore, the accused committed offences punishable under Section 352, 327, 365, 366, 376(f) of IPC.

5. Before the trial Court, the charges under Section 365, 366-A, 376(2) (f), 506(ii) of IPC were framed against the accused. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.10 witnesses were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. Further, examined C.W.1 and marked Ex.C1.

6. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused as stated supra. Hence, the appeal.

7. Heard both sided and perused the records.

8. The learned legal aid counsel for the convicted accused would state that the trial Court relied upon the uncorroborated evidence of P.W.6/victim child and the same is not permissible on facts and circumstances of the case and the mother/P.W.1, mother of the victim girl/P.W.6 has turned hostile. Therefore, coming into existence of Ex.P1/complaint is doubtful. There is a delay in lodging the police complaint. The appellant is not well verse in Tamil and he is illiterate and hence questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was only on empty formalities in this case.

9. The learned Government Advocate for the respondent police would contend that the evidence of prosecutrix (P.W.6/victim girl) is clear and