PANDI Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 158 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions cum Mahila Court, Madurai. He stood charged for the offence under Sections 450 and 376(1) IPC. The trial Court, by judgment dated 07.06.2012, convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 450 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 376(1) IPC. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is as follows;

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that except PW1, there is no other eyewitness to speak about the occurrence. According to him, the other witnesses examined were all only hearsay witnesses. The learned counsel would further point out that the evidence of PW1 deserves to be rejected, because she is highly interested in the case of the prosecution and related to the victim girl. According to him, in the absence of any corroboration, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of PW1 and to convict the accused. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would further point out that the medical evidence clearly belies the version spoken to by PW1. He would also submit that even assuming that the evidence of PW1 is true, the same would not go to prove the offence under Section 376(1) IPC. At any rate, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal.