BABU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was found guilty of the offences under Sections 376 and 366 of IPC and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 366 of IPC, vide Judgment dated 22.01.2010 in S.C.No.65 of 2009 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai. Questioning the same, this appeal has been filed.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 29.11.2007, at about 02.00 p.m., the appellant herein took away the victim girl from the lawful custody of P.W.1 and went to Kerala and during his stay there, for more than 45 days, he had sexual intercourse with the victim girl. In this regard, Ex.P1-Complaint was lodged by P.W.1 before the Sub Inspector of Police, Poonamaravathy Police Station on 29.11.2007 itself. Based on Ex.P1, Crime No.2 of 2008, was registered on 05.01.2008 for the offence under Section 366(a) of IPC(Ex.P10). The defacto complainant filed a Habeas Corpus Petition before the High Court and ultimately, the victim girl surfaced on 28.01.2008. Investigation continued and final report came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam for the offences under Sections 376, 366 and 366(a) of IPC against the appellant herein. Cognizance of the offences was taken and since the case was exclusively triable by the trial Court, it was committed to the Sessions Court in P.R.C.No.52 of 2008. It was ultimately made over to the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkotai in Session Case No.65 of 2009. Charges were framed against the accused under the aforesaid provisions and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of the prosecution case as many as 13 witnesses were examined. Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 were marked. On the side of the accused, no evidence was adduced. The learned trial Judge, by Judgment dated 22.01.2010, found the accused guilty of the offence under Sections 376 of IPC and under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the appeal memorandum. His core contention is that charge against the appellant can be said to be established, only if it is shown that the appellant gave a false promise to marry and had sexual intercourse with the victim on that basis. He drew my attention to the testimony of the victim girl herself in this regard. The victim girl had clearly stated in her evidence that the accused/appellant herein had an intention to marry her. She would further state that but for the intervention of the parents of the accused, he would not have left her also. She conceded that her father had given a police case and that, as a result, the parents of the accused were detained and subjected to torture. The relationship between the parties appears to have suffered crack on account of this developments. The appellant's counsel would make a claim before this Court that even though twelve years have lapsed, the appellant continuous to remain single. The appellant's counsel, in this regard, drew my attention to the decision of this Court reported in 2010 (2) CTC 723 (Swami @ Ramakrishnan Vs. State by Inspector of Police, G2 Puthumanthu).