JONY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who is the sole accused, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, In-charge Mahila Court, Chennai, in S.C.No.194 of 2004 for offences under Sections 376(2)(f), 366 and 363 I.P.C. and by a judgment dated 23.06.2005, the trial Judge found the appellant guilty of all the charges and convicted and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and convicted for the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo six years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and further convicted for the offence under Section 363 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Challenging the said judgment, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

(3.) Ms.Jayasri Baskar, learned counsel for the appellant/accused would contend that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.1 and the victim girl-P.W.6 and no name was stated by P.W.1 in the complaint-Ex.P.1. Further, the trial Court has failed to consider the fact that there was a delay in lodging the F.I.R. and not lodging of F.I.R. first in Madhavaram police station where the victim girl-P.W.6 was brought at the first instance had not been explained by the prosecution. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused contended that at the time of admitting the victim girl-P.W.6 in the hospital, she has stated that the injuries were caused only by unknown persons and she has not stated the name of the accused and hence, the trial Court has erred in finding the accused guilty. The trial Court ought to have believed the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2. There are so many contradictions in the material evidence in this case and the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has wrongly came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty and sentenced him. Hence, in view of the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused prays for acquittal of the accused.