J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.05.2022 imposed in Spl.S.C.No.10 of 2021 on the file of the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur.

2.The respondent police registered the case against the appellant in Crime No.9 of 2021 initially for offence under Section 366(A) IPC and subsequently, altered into Section 366 IPC and Section 5(l) punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act and after completing the investigation, laid charge sheet before the Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur. The learned Sessions Judge after completing the formalities, taken up the charge sheet on file in Spl.S.C.No.10 of 2021 and framed charges against the appellant for the offence under Sections 366, 376(2) (n) IPC and also for the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act.

3. After framing the charges, in order to prove the case of the prosecution during trial before the trial Court, totally 11 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and 21 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.21 and one material object was exhibited as M.O.1 besides one Court document was marked as Ex.C.1.

4. After completing the examination of the prosecution witnesses, incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put before the accused by questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied the same as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was produced.

5. On conclusion of trial after hearing the arguments advanced on either side, considering the materials, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 366, 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5(l) punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act and convicted and sentenced to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year for the offence under Section 366 IPC; to undergo 25 years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act. Challenging the said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has filed this present appeal before this Court.

6. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.03.2021 at about 12 noon, while the victim was standing near her house, the appellant came there and was talking with the victim. On seeing the same, the parents of the victim quarreled with the appellant. Subsequently, the appellant pulled the hands of the victim and taken her in his bike. Initially the case of registered for the offence under Section 366(A) IPC and during investigation, it was found that the appellant took the victim to his uncle's house and stayed there for 2 days and under the guise of marrying the victim, had sexual intercourse with her. Hence, the offence was altered into Section 366 IPC and Section 5(l) punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has not proved the foundational fact that the victim was forcibly taken by the appellant without the consent of her natural / lawful guardian and committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim for more than once. Further, the prosecution also failed to prove that the victim was forcibly subjected to rape. The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and wrongly convicted the appellant. Further there are material contradictions between the evidence of the victim/P.W.1 and her parents P.W.2 and P.W.3 regarding abduction and also regarding forcible sexual assault on the victim. Further there are material contradictions even between the evidence of the victim before the trial Court and the statement of the victim made before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the previous statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section