S.SENTHILKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was convicted and sentenced by the Mahila Court, Salem, the details of which are as follows :

(2.) The prosecution case opens with Ext.P.1, complaint dtd. 18/5/2012. P.W.1, the defacto complainant narrates that she was a Nun, that she was working in a convent at Kalakkampadi, and that the appellant was working in Annai Therasa Primary School, Kalakkampadi, that he would often visit the place where P.W.1 was working, that on one of the days,he had forced himself on her, owing to which, she had conceived, but had later refused to marry her and was planning to marry another women. Receiving the same, Ext.P.8, FIR was registered by P.W.7, the Sub Inspector of Police and the matter was taken up for investigation by P.W.10. He proceeded and investigated the scene of occurrence and prepared Ext.P.7, Observation Mahazar in the presence of witnesses, and also prepared Ext.P.9, Rough Sketch. The Investigating Officer then forwarded the victim for medical examination. The Investigating Officer would then interrogate various witnesses associated with the Home where P.W.1 stayed. In the course of the investigation, P.W.1 delivered a boy and the Investigating Officer caused a DNA test to ascertain if the accused had fathered the baby. The report (Ext.P.15) was made available by P.W.9, the forensic expert. In the report, the expert has found that the child born to P.W.1 was fathered by the accused. The Investigating Officer, in the course of the investigation, had also seized Ext.P.2, a notice which the accused has sent to P.W.1 though his counsel one day prior to Ext.P.1, complaint, to be precise, on 17/5/2012 and also Ext.P.3 reply dtd. 12/6/2012, which P.W.1 has issued to Ext.P.2 notice. In the meantime, the Investigator was changed. It was continued thereafter, by P.W.11 and a final report was laid by P.W.14.

(3.) .Pursuant to the final report, the matter was committed to Sessions, where the learned Mahila Court, Salem framed charges against the accused for the offences as stated in the opening paragraph. The trial Court found the appellant guilty of all the offences and sentenced him as above. This is now in challenge.