KARUNAKARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 28.11.2012, made in S.C. No. 393 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court Salem, whereby the appellant herein was convicted for the offences under Section 376(1) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and the fine amount was ordered to be paid to the victim as compensation and in default in payment of fine amount, to undergo six months simple imprisonment. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

(2.) Challenging the Judgment of conviction and sentence, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised two grounds stating that due to previous enmity, a false complaint has been lodged against the accused. He further submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 26.03.2010 when the victim girl was in school that was evidenced by P.W. 9-Elizabeth, Headmistress of St. Joseph Girls Higher Secondary School Suramangalam and Ex. D1 Attendance register. But, the said factum has not been considered by the trial court in proper perspective. He further submitted that there is a delay in preferring the complaint, it is further submitted that with a view to grap the money from the father of the accused appellant herein, a false complaint has been given and the same has not been proved by examining D.Ws. 1 and 2 and marking the documents Exs. D1 to D4 by preponderance of probabilities But, the said factum has not been considered by the trial Court. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

(3.) Resisting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that since the victim girl was aged about 11 years at the time of occurrence, the delay in preferring the complaint is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Even though they pleaded that due to enmity between the son of P.W. 5, namely, Raja who is the cousin of P.W. 1 and the father of the accused with regard to sale of property of the father of the accused and to grab the money from him, a false complaint has been given, but the same has not been proved by the defence, He further submitted that Ex. D2 complaint was given in C.S.R. No. 115 of 2010 on 31.3.2010 i.e. Ex. D3 by one Venkatachalam father of the accused to save his son from the clutches of law. He further submitted that the evidence of P.W. 1 itself is fair. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.