JUDGMENT : P. DEVADASS, J. 1. The sole accused in the Sessions Case in S.C.No.48 of 2015 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur seeks suspension of his sentence of imprisonment. 2. In the said Court, after trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Section 341 IPC S.I for one month and fine Rs.500/-, i/d one week S.I Section 342 IPC R.I for 6 months and fine Rs.1,000/-, i/d one month S.I Section 323 IPC R.I for 6 months and fine Rs.1,000/-, i/d one month R.I Section 366 IPC R.I for 5 years and fine Rs.5,000/-, i/d one year R.I Section 354 IPC R.I for 2 years and fine Rs.5,000/-, i/d 6 months R.I Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 R.I for 2 years and fine Rs.10,000/-, i/d 3 month R.I All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. PW-1/victim, a minor girl, is the daughter of PW-6. On the occurrence day, she is stated to have been kidnapped by the accused in a Car. She was wrongfully restrained, confined in the Car intending to outrage her modesty. And she was subjected to sexual harassment. The Trial Court mainly relying on the evidence of victim, her father and medical evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as already stated. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, due to prior enmity, the accused has been implicated in this case. The victim's oral evidence has not been substantiated by the medical evidence. There are many material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. To wreck vengeance against the accused PW-11 was instrumental in foisting this case against the accused. There is prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. He is in jail for a longtime. In the circumstances, he may be granted appeal bail. 5. The prosecution filed counter. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the accused is already known to the victim. Due to a motive as between PW-6, father of the victim girl and the accused side in connection with the water pipe dispute, the accused has kidnapped the victim, subjected her to sexual harassment. There is clear cut evidence of PW-1 the victim. There is medical evidence of PW-17. There is no prima facie case against the petitioner. Due to a motive as between PW-6, father of the victim girl and the accused side in connection with the water pipe dispute, the accused has kidnapped the victim, subjected her to sexual harassment. There is clear cut evidence of PW-1 the victim. There is medical evidence of PW-17. There is no prima facie case against the petitioner. It is not a fit case for grant of appeal bail. 7. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the Trial Court's judgment and the averments in the bail petition and the counter filed by the prosecution and the materials on record. 8. Now in the facts and circumstances, the question is whether the petitioner could be granted appeal bail under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. 9. There shall be a prima facie case in favour of the accused to grant him the relief asked for. In order to find out the same, the findings of the Trial Court and the evidence based upon which the finding was recorded have to be referred to. The evidence of the victim in a sexual violence case shall be treated as the evidence of an injured witness. When the victim's evidence is consistent, cogent and not unnatural and it is unimpeachable, the Court could safely record the conviction. There must be strong motive to reject her testimony. 10. Now, in this case, the occurrence is alleged to have been taken place on 7.3.2007 at about 5 p.m. at Ariyalur. Then, PW-1/victim girl was 12 years old. Then she was studying VII Standard in a school. She is a minor girl. The evidence of PW-1 is that while she was returning from the school, the accused came in a Car driven by one Murugan (since died), they have kidnapped her, compelled her to kiss the accused, he also squeezed her breasts and touched her private part. She revealed this occurrence to her father/PW-6. Ex.P-1 complaint contains the substratum of the prosecution version of the case. PW-6 corroborated the version of PW-6 by stating that his daughter had revealed the sexual harassment to which she has been subjected to at the hands of the accused. 11. She revealed this occurrence to her father/PW-6. Ex.P-1 complaint contains the substratum of the prosecution version of the case. PW-6 corroborated the version of PW-6 by stating that his daughter had revealed the sexual harassment to which she has been subjected to at the hands of the accused. 11. Although PW-1 had identified the accused in the Test Identification Parade conducted before PW-7/Judicial Magistrate, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is superfluous and her such identification does not matter much because the identity of the accused is already known to PW-1 as the accused is residing in a house near to her house [Noorahammed and others vs. State of Karnataka, 2016 (3) SCC 325 ] 12. Initially, PW-8, a male Doctor has seen PW-1. Then PW-17 a female Doctor examined PW-1 and found abrasions on her breast, thigh and other parts. There is no much significant delay in lodging the FIR. The motive suggested on the part of the accused is feeble and not so strong enough to reject her testimony. 13. In the facts and circumstances, there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. It is not a fit case for grant of appeal bail. Thus I am not inclined to grant him appeal bail. 14. In view of the foregoings, this petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the observations in this order have been made only for a limited purpose to find out prima facie case and it has no connection with the disposal of the main appeal.