JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment of the learned Mahila Judge (Fast Track) of Nilgiris at Ootacamund made in C.A.No.12 of 2013 dated 04.09.2015 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam made in S.C.No.13 of 2011 dated 10.09.2013.) 1. The matter is heard through “Video Conference”. 2. The respondent~police, filed final report against the appellant and another accused for the alleged offence under Section 417, 376, 506(ii) and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, (herein after referred to as -the Act-). After trial, A2 was acquitted. 3. The criminal revision petition is filed against the judgment of the learned Mahila Judge (Fast Track) of Nilgiris at Ootacamund made in C.A.No.12 of 2013 dated 04.09.2015, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam made in S.C.No.13 of 2011 dated 10.09.2013. 4. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam, had laid the conviction and sentence against A1 as stated supra. On appeal in criminal appeal No.12/2013, dated 04.09.2015, the learned Mahila Judge, Udhagamandalam, has chosen to confirm the conviction, after reduced the sentence of 376 to three years rigorous imprisonment i.e., below the minimum sentence, no special reason has been assigned there for. 5. The case of the prosecution is that (i) on 20.04.2006, at about 11.30 am, the alleged victim girl/P.W.1 and the first accused were lived in New Hope Estate, Gudalur, stating that the accused pulled the hands of the victim and taken her to the Room No.373, in the residential area and the first accused made a promise to marry and committed sexual assault. However, the minor victim girl, refused to submit herself, against her interest and willingness, he committed sexual intercourse on her and after that on 30.04.2006, around 12.00 noon and again on 10.05.2006, at 11.30 am, and on 20.04.2006 and 18.11.2006, he had promised to marry and stated that he did not marry any other person except the victim girl. Subsequently, the victim girl was found 7 months pregnant on 23.11.2006 and she went along with the relatives, the first accused refused to marry and the first accused along with second accused criminally threatened her and hence, the complaint. 6. Subsequently, the victim girl was found 7 months pregnant on 23.11.2006 and she went along with the relatives, the first accused refused to marry and the first accused along with second accused criminally threatened her and hence, the complaint. 6. Before the trial Sessions Judge, P.W.1 to P.W.23 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.22 were marked and MO.1 to MO.4 were also marked. 7. P.W.1 is the victim girl. P.W.2 is the sister of P.W.1. P.W.1 was brought up by the family friend. P.W.3 is the neighbour. P.W.4 is also one of the neighbour. P.W.5/Shanthi, who had brought up P.W.1. P.W.5 and P.W.7, went along with the victim girl to the hospital wherein, for the first time, P.W.1/victim girl was found seven months pregnant. 8. P.W.13/Dr.Chandra who runs a private clinic in Gudalor, has stated that on 19.11.2016, the victim girl was accommodated by her relative, on her explanation, stated that the victim was seven months pregnant and accordingly, had issued Ex.P5/medical certificate. P.W.8/Dr.Tamilselvan, through whom Ex.P4 was marked, goes to show that when the victim girl was produced for sickness, she was diagnosed as pregnant. P.W.17/Dr.Umashankar, who had examined victim girl and issued Ex.P13/medical certificate to the effect that the P.W.1 is between 17 and 18 at the time of the inspection. 9. P.W.9/Dr.Sipranaidu, who deposed that after complaint has been given, the police accompanied the victim girl on 10.12.2006, the victim girl Priya has delivered female baby and issued the certificate. P.W.19/Dr.Tamilselvi, who had examined the victim girl after the delivery, would depose that the evidence of child birth is noticed and after the child birth, she also opined that the hymen is not intact. P.W.20, the Assistant, attached to the forensic department, Coimbatore, based upon the requisition given by the learned Judicial Magistrate, has collected sample for DNA test from the accused and the victim girl and marked Ex.P.20. 10. P.W.15/Dr.Sivapriya, who is the Deputy Director of the forensic department, in Chennai, had given the certificate under Ex.P15 that in the absence of twins, the baby Varshini was born and the accused is biological father and the victim girl is biological mother. P.W.18/Dr.Pugazhenthi, who had conducted potency test on the accused, who issued Ex.P16 to show that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is impotent. P.W.18/Dr.Pugazhenthi, who had conducted potency test on the accused, who issued Ex.P16 to show that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is impotent. P.W.10, who runs the studio in the name of Ajantha has marked M.O.1 to M.O.4, wherein, it is a joint motive of the victim girl and the accused. 11. Exs.P.11, P.12, P.14, P.21 and P.22 are the police witnesses, regarding discharge of the official duty, in connection with the investigation taking the victim and accused to get medical opinion from the respective Doctors. 12. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, she had clearly deposed the act of the accused on the private part of her by the accused on the dates mentioned in the complaint. In short, the version of P.W.1 duly corroborates Ex.P1/complaint. At the time of the examination, her age was 17 years, it was after one year of the occurrence and therefore, both the Courts below had rightly held that the age of the victim girl is 16 years at the time of the occurrence. Since, the medical examination age was conducted after one year. From the evidence of P.W.1, there is nothing in the cross examination except the formal suggestion denying the alleged act of the accused. It is clearly stated that when P.W.1 was called and she had initially taken to P.W.13/Dr.Chandra, who had diagnosed that P.W.1 is 7 months pregnant and issued Ex.P.5/certificate. Thereafter, she was referred to Government Hospital. 13. P.W.8/Dr.Tamilselvan, after examination of the victim girl who is aged 15 at the relevant point of time, have issued accident register/Ex.P4, wherein, the accused has stated that known man had sexual intercourse against her interest had committed rape during April- 2006. P.W.20, Assistant, attached to the forensic department have stated about the collection of samples from the victim and accused and forwarded to the Central office under Ex.P20. P.W.15/Dr.Sivapriya, scientist from Chennai Forensic science, had issued DNA Certificate under Ex.P8, wherein, the victim girl is identified as Biological Mother and accused as Biological Father. 14. On combined reading of the evidence of P.W.1, on Ex.P.1/complaint, I find that the evidence of P.W.1 inspires the confidence of this Court, as the act of the accused on the private part of the victim girl at the time of the occurrence. The age certificate was issued by the Doctor was unchallenged, as could be seen from the cross examination. The age certificate was issued by the Doctor was unchallenged, as could be seen from the cross examination. The evidence of P.W.5, P.W.7 and P.W.2 are to the fact of discovery of pregnancy of the minor girl, as stated supra. 15. The medical evidence of the above said Doctors P.W.8, P.W.9, PW.13, P.W.15, P.W.18, P.W.19, goes to show that the medical evidence of Doctor clearly demonstrate that she was found pregnant. Subsequently, she was preferred to Government Hospital, wherein she has deposed that the known man has committed the offence. Subsequently, complaint was lodged and thereafter, after following the procedures after contemplated there for, sexual offence against the girl, after she had begotten the baby girl and thereafter, the victim and accused were subjected to DNA test and also lends support to the prosecution theory. 16. Based upon the above analysis, the trial Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the accused A1 has committed offence under Section 376, 417, 506(ii) and accordingly, laid the conviction and also passed the sentence as mentioned supra. 17. The learned Assistant Judge, has confirmed the conviction, however, reduced the sentence to three years. The minimum sentence described for the offence under Section 376 is seven years and hence, I find that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is against the statute. 18. P.W.1/victim girl evidence is clear and cogent. On combined reading of the evidence of P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and P.W.5, it is clearly established by the prosecution that P.W.1 was seven months pregnant, found by P.W.13, thereafter, the Government Doctor have conducted the medical examination and issued necessary certificate as discussed supra. Subsequently, she also delivered the baby girl and DNA test also support the case of the prosecution. Though the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that on consent, the accused had sexual intercourse. The suggestion on similar lines made with P.W.1 has been categorically denied in her cross examination assumes significance. 19. Subsequently, she also delivered the baby girl and DNA test also support the case of the prosecution. Though the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that on consent, the accused had sexual intercourse. The suggestion on similar lines made with P.W.1 has been categorically denied in her cross examination assumes significance. 19. As per the age certificate issued to P.W.1, she is aged between 17 to 18 years, that examination has been conducted after one year of the alleged date and hence, the finding rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, she is below 16 years and hence, the same is hereby confirmed and the criminal intimidation alleged by P.W.1 was duly supported by the neighbour/P.W.3, who was not even cross examined by the accused also support the case of the prosecution and hence, I find that both the Courts below had correctly laid the conviction on the above said charges and the same does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. 20. In the absence of any perversity in finding the order of conviction passed by both the Courts below is hereby confirmed. On the point of sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that after the conviction order passed by the Sessions Judge, the victim girl has got married of her choice and accused also got married. The subsequent marriage of the victim, after conviction, marrying a person, will not cause any dent or doubt on the evidence of P.W.1 and the same is hereby rejected. 21. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in S.C.No.13 of 2011 is restored. In respect of sentence and conviction passed in S.C.No.13 of 2011 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam, as confirmed in C.A.No.12 of 2012 is confirmed and in respect of conviction for the proved charges, the sentence awarded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge Udhagamandalam in S.C.No.13 of 2011, dated 10.09.2013 is restored.