SOUNDARRAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment in S.C.No.24 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC.No.II, Ranipet.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution some 8 months prior to 31.8.2002 the accused had cohabited with the complainant, which resulted in her pregnancy. It is the case of the prosecution that prosecutrix had given her consent because the accused under the pretext of marrying her had sexual intercourse with her. The accused has been charged under Section 417 & 376 IPC.

(3.) P.W.2 is the father of P.W.1. He would depose that he heard from P.W.1, his daughter, that the accused had committed sexual intercourse with her and that he made a request to the accused to marry P.W.1, but the accused had failed to heed to the request. Hence, his daughter P.W.1 preferred Ex.P.1-complaint.