R.BHAGYARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused is the revision petitioner herein. He has preferred this criminal revision case against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry, in C.A.No.14 of 2016, dtd. 14/2/2017, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Puducherry, in S.C.No.72 of 2009, dtd. 23/3/2016.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 18/11/2006, the victim/P.W.l lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram, against the revision petitioner and the same was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Villupuram Taluk Police Station and on the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No. 154 of 2007 dtd. 14/2/2007 against the revision petitioner for the offences under Ss. 376 and 417 of IPC and for want of jurisdiction, the case was transferred to Kirumambakkam police station, Puducherry/respondent herein and renumbered as Crime No.64 of 2007 for the offences under Ss. 376 and 417 of IPC as against the petitioner. After completing the investigation, the respondent police has filed final report for the offences under Ss. 376 and 417 of IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry in P.R.C.No.22 of 2009 and made over the same to the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Puducherry and after committal proceedings, the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Puducherry framed charges against the accused/revision petitioner herein for the offences under Ss. 376 and 417 of IPC.

(3.) The suggestive case of the defence is that there is no such promise to marry. If at all there was sexual intercourse between the prosecutrix and the accused, it ought to have been con-sexual and consensual act.