RAJA ANNANAGAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethi Mandram, Tiruvarur, by judgment dated 19.08.2014, passed in S.C.No.33 of 2013, has convicted the appellant/A1 under section 312 Part II IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months and acquitted the appellant/A1 of the offences under Sections 376 and 417 IPC and further also acquitted A2 - Sekar and A3-Seetha of the offences under Section 294(b) IPC and Section 4 of TNPWH Act 2012. Impugning the conviction and sentence imposed on him, the appellant /A1 has come forward with the present appeal.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, according to the prosecution case, the appellant and the victim girl aged 18 years are the residents of Avalivanallur Village and both the appellant and the victim girl were engaged in the love affair and on 12.03.2012, the victim girl consumed Slice, Cool drink, which was given by the appellant through a boy and while the victim girl was sleeping, the appellant committed rape upon her and further on 15.03.2012, at about 10 pm, while the victim girl was alone in her house, the appellant came and informed her that it was he who had committed rape upon her while she was sleeping and promised to marry her and thereby again had sexual intercourse with her and on account of the abovesaid acts committed by the appellant, the victim girl got conceived and informed the same to the appellant and requested him to marry her and the appellant directed the victim girl to abort the child and for that purpose gave tablet to the victim girl and the same was taken by the victim girl and inasmuch as the victim girl suffered pain, on 03.06.2012, she was admitted in the private hospital and her cleaning was conducted by the doctor and further it is stated that on 25.06.2012, at about 9 am, the accused A2 and A3 scolded the victim girl with filthy language and caused harassment and thus it is putforth that the appellant/A1 had committed the offences punishable under Sections 376, 312 and 417 IPC and A2 and A3 had committed the offences punishable under Section 294(b) IPC and Section 4 of TNPWH Act 2012.

(3.) In support of the prosecution case P.Ws. 1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. No MO has been marked. On the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.Pc. with reference to the incriminating evidence and the accused had denied the same. According to the accused, they had not committed the offences levelled against them and the case has been falsely foisted against them and in particular A1 has disowned that he is responsible for causing the pregnancy of the victim girl and also denied that it is he who had caused the miscarriage of the child by giving tablet as alleged by the victim girl and contended that he is already married with the third accused, namely, Geetha, on 11.04.2012 itself to the knowledge of the victim girl and her relatives and therefore, according to him, the case has been falsely foisted against him by the victim girl. In support of the defence version, the appellant has examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.D1 to D4. No MO has been marked.