Consent given under a misconception of fact does not equate to coercion; failure to marry post-consent does not invalidate original consent.

1. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.10.2013 passed in S.C. No. 2 of 2013 by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur.

2. The Appellant is the sole accused. He stood charged for the offence under S.376 and S.506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By judgment dated 25.10.2013, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur convicted the Accused under S.376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. He is acquitted for the charge under S.506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the Accused is before this Court by filing the present Criminal Appeal.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: -
(i) PW1, viz., Tmt Sargunambai, is the victim in this case. She is a Post Graduate. She is working as an organizer of Noon Meal Scheme in a Government School. She is living at Thathampet Village in Jayankondam Taluk with her family members. The Appellant / Accused is an Advocate by profession and residing at Periyakrishnapuram Village. There was a proposal for marriage between the Appellant / Accused and the victim. On 20.08.2011, the Appellant / Accused along with his brother went to the house of the victim following the marriage proposal. According to the custom prevailed in the society, the relatives of either side were also present during the event. After exchanging pleasantries, the proposed couples expressed their satisfaction and consent for the marriage. Marriage was agreed to be solemnized within the next few months. After one week, the Accused came to the house of the victim on 28.08.2011 and met the victim privately and had sexual intercourse with her by convincing her by citing their proposed marriage. The Accused stayed at the house of the victim till the evening on that day.
(ii) Later, the Appellant / Accused paid several visits to the house of the victim at the weekends and had sexual intercourse with her under the guise of the proposed marriage. The Accused used to speak with her over telephone after each visits. As a consequence, the victim became pregnant. When the Accused was informed about the pregnancy, he made all arrangements to terminate the pregnancy Ultimately, the pregnancy was terminated at the instance of the Accused.
(iii) Few months later, when the victim and her relatives approached the Accused for marriage, he was saying some lame excuses. In the meantime, the brother of the Accused was making arrangements for the marriage of the Accused with another lady. After coming to know about this, the victim preferred a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Jayankondam under Ex.P.1 dated 18.05.2012.
(iv) On 18.05.2012, PW8, viz., Sivasubramanian, the then Inspector of Police received complaint from PW1 and registered a case in Crime No. 6 of 2012 under S.376, S.417, S.312 and S.506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. The printed FIR has been marked as Ex.P.7. He took up the case for investigation and on the next day, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He took steps to forward the victim for medical examination by a lady doctor for which he sent a requisition to the Judicial Magistrate, Jayankondam for issuing proceedings.
(v) As per the requisition made by PW8, PW7, viz., Dr. Prabhavathi, examined the victim girl medically on 02.06.2012. The proceedings issued by the Registry and the requisition letter given by the Investigation Officer were marked as Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 respectively. Ac