A conviction for kidnapping and sexual offences against a minor may be set aside if subsequent events, including the victim turning hostile in later proceedings and a settlement between parties, render the original conviction unsustainable.

PRAYER:

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant passed in Spl.C.C.No.17 of 2016, dated 17.11.2017 on the file of the Sessions (Fast Track Mahila), Namakkal, Namakkal District and pass such further or other orders.

ORDER

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment passed in Spl.C.C.No.17 of 2016, dated 17.11.2017 on the file of the Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal, Namakkal District, whereby convicted the accused for the offence under Section 366(A) IPC and Section 5(1) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl, Nerosha aged about 14 years, studying Xth standard in a private school at Aniyapuram was kidnapped by the accused. The accused is a distant relative to the father of the victim and he used to visit the victim’s village frequently since he has relative there and acquainted with the victim. He kidnapped the victim on 15.01.2016 at about 6.45 p.m., near the house of the victim situated at Thorriyapatty, on promise that he would marry her and thereafter, he took the victim girl to Muniyandi Vilas Hotel at Thogaimalai, where both of them had stayed for two days. During that time, the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim girl twice with the false promise that he would convince his parents to arrange for marriage. On the complaint, the respondent police has registered an FIR in Crime No.16 of 2016 for the offence under Section 366-A IPC, 5(1) r/w 6 of POCSO Act.

3. After completion of investigation, the case was taken cognizance by the trial Court and framed charges as against the accused under Section 366-A IPC, 5(1) r/w 6 of POCSO Act.

4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined PW1 to PW17 and marked Exs.P1 to P12. On the side of the accused, no documents were marked to disprove the charges.

5. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 366-A IPC, 5(1) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo 7 years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine 3 months RI and for the offence under Section 5(1) r/w 6 POCSO Act 2012, the accused is convicted and sentenced to 10 years RI along with fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine 3 months RI. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, after the conviction, the victim has once again eloped with the accused and got married. Therefore, another FIR came to be registered and after completion of investigation, it has taken cognizance in Spl.C.C.No.15 of 2018 on the file of the Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Namakkal. The victim had deposed as PW1 and later she turned hostile before the trial Court and in fact her parents also turned hostile before the trial Court. Further, he submitted that the victim girl got married to another person and the accused also got married to another person. Therefore, the trial Court had acquitted the accused. In the subsequent occurrence, the victim eloped with the accused and thereafter, she turned hostile. Therefore, he submitted that no purpose would be served if the conviction and the sentence is allowed to stand. However, the victim girl has committed suicide along with her husband and both died. Further, he submitted that in view of the settlement between the parties, the conviction and the sente