P. YUVAPRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant is aggrieved by the conviction affirmed and the sentence imposed by the Madras High Court, rejecting his plea(By common final order dtd. 14/12/2016 in Cr. A. No. 400/2016.). He is acquitted of committing offense under Sec. 366 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter "IPC"), but convicted under Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereafter "POCSO Act").

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that one T. Abdul Hameed complained to the police that his younger daughter (hereafter "M" or "the victim"), aged 17 years (running 18 years), had stomach-ache when he went out on work on 13/1/2015. His elder daughter Vaheedha and his younger sister Ameena had taken M to the hospital. While they were returning home, near Rita School, Shastri Nagar, at about 02.30 hours, one Yuvaprakash and two others reached the spot, kidnapped M, and escaped from there by two-wheeler. This incident was reported to Abdul Hameed by his elder daughter over the phone. He and others searched for M in the nearby areas, but it in vain. Abdul Hameed lodged a complaint(registered in Crime No. 22 of 2015.) under Sec. 366A of the IPC. It was further alleged that on 14/1/2015, the appellant and A-3, A-4, A-6 to A-9 took M to a temple at Kodumudi town, where the appellant tied a thali around M's neck to solemnize their marriage. After the marriage, again the appellant and A-3, A4, A6 to A9 took M to the second accused's house, where they made her to stay with the appellant. It was alleged that while they were there, the appellant had repeated sexual intercourse with M.

(3.) It was also alleged that on 15/1/2015, the accused took M in an Omni van to Madurai, where the appellant stayed with her in his uncle's house between 15:01.2015 and 25/1/2015, at Seelanayakanpatti and that during this time too, the appellant repeatedly had sexual intercourse with the victim. Meanwhile, the police investigated the complaint, which was registered as a missing person report. On 25/1/2015, the appellant and the other accused became aware that a complaint had been lodged; as a result, they abandoned M and left Madurai. She then returned to her father's house at Erode, when he took her to the police station and reported what had occurred to the investigating officer (IO), viz. PW-16. PW-16 recorded the victim's statement under Sec. 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereafter "Cr. PC"). M's statement was also recorded under Sec. 164 of the Cr. PC. In this, she stated that she had known the accused, and both loved each other, for about a year; this was known to her father and grandmother, who objected to their relationship. This led to her consuming rat poison to commit suicide; however, she was hospitalized and treated. She further stated that she eloped with the appellant voluntarily- a fact known to her aunt and PW-4, her sister. She also stated that the appellant and his relatives solemnized her marriage with him, and they lived as a married couple. According to her, when they were living together, the police came in search of her, after which she came to know that her father had filed a police complaint. She further clarified that she was never abducted nor married forcibly and that she married the appellant as per her wishes.