MANIKANDAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Mahila Sessions Judge, Salem, dated 29.08.2013 in S.C.No.16 of 2012 whereby the appellant was convicted under sections 376(i) and 417 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under section 376(i) IPC and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 417 IPC.

(2.) The gist of the case in a nutshell is as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel would submit that the time and date of occurrence has not been clearly proved by the prosecution. In the complaint given by the victim girl, she had stated that she personally met the accused on 17.2.2010 at their native place but in the chief and cross examination she has stated that she contacted the accused over phone while the accused was in Kerala. Thus, her evidence is self contradictory and the same cannot be believed. The learned counsel would further submit that even according to the prosecution it is only a consensual act and there was no promise to marry as alleged by the prosecution and as such no offence under section 376 or 417 IPC is attracted.