R. MARIAPPAN Vs. STATE REP. BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHETTYPALAYAM POLICE STATION, KINNATHUKADAVU, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, (CRIME NO. 148/2006)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the sole accused in SC. No. 102/2007 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Coimbatore. He stood charged and tried for the commission of the offence under section 376 read with 511 IPC and the Trial Court, vide impugned Judgment dated 29.08.2008, has convicted the appellant for the above said offence and sentenced him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- with a default sentence of two years simple imprisonment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed.

(2.) The facts of the prosecution case that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal, in brief, are as follows:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He would submit that the present case is false and foisted against the appellant/accused on account of the enmity that exist between him and P.W.1 as regards the transfer of the title of the house in which P.W.1 was residing at the instance of the appellant/accused. Learned counsel would further add that even on cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted that she did not give any complaint against the appellant/accused alleging that he had raped her. There are several improvements in each and every stage of the investigation. Learned counsel would also point out that there is enormous delay in lodging the complaint by P.W.1 as the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place 08.07.2006 and the complaint was given on 26.07.2006. He also placed heavy reliance upon the medical report - Ex. P.2 [Accident Register] pertaining to P.W.1, in support of his contentions. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that there are several inconsistencies and infirmities in the case of the prosecution and the Trial Court, without properly appreciating the material particulars, had erroneously reached the conclusion of convicting the appellant/accused for the offence under section 376 read with 511 IPC and prays for setting aside of the same.