SELVAM Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole accused, who stood charged under Sections 376 and 417 of Indian Penal Code, tried for the said offences, but was convicted under Section 376(1) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ -, with the default sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment, vide judgment dated 18.01.2007, made in S.C.No. 4 of 2006 on the file of the Sessions Court, Mahila Court, at Madurai, has filed this appeal. The Trial Court further ordered that out of the fine amount of Rs.5,000/ -, Rs.4,000/ - shall be paid to P .W.1/victim by way of compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Trial Court has also acquitted the appellant/accused for the commission of the offence under Section 417 of Indian Penal Code. The accused, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court for the commission of the offence under Section 376(1) of Indian Penal Code, has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the present Criminal Appeal are, briefly, narrated as follows:

(3.) IT is further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused that though the victim was subjected to medical examination, her medical report has not been marked and curiously, the brother of the victim, who has lodged Ex.P.5 -complaint, though was examined during investigation, was not cited as a witness and similarly, the mother of the victim girl was also not cited as a witness, though she was examined during investigation. However, both of them died subsequently. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the case of the prosecution proceeds with many infirmities and inconsistencies and in any event, the Trial Court ought to have awarded the benefit of doubt and acquitted the appellant/accused, instead, the Trial Court has chosen to convict him for the offence under Section 376(1) of Indian Penal Code and having taken into consideration the cumulative circumstances, has awarded him the sentence of imprisonment of three years only, though Section 376(1) of Indian Penal Code stipulates the sentence of imprisonment, which shall not be less than seven years and, therefore, prays for interference.