position to obtain the consent from the complainant by putting her under duress. He further submits that from the evidence on record it is quite evident that the complainant was a consenting party and she voluntarily lived with him for about 3-4 months and permitted the accused/appellant for sex with her. He further submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the complainant was minor at the relevant time and therefore, looking to the long standing physical relations between the two it fully appears to be a case of consent and it is for that reason he has been acquitted of the charge under Section 376 IPC and since the entire case of the prosecution is based on the set of evidence, the conviction of the accused-appellant under the Special Act also is liable to be set aside. This apart, he also submits that the caste certificate produced by the prosecution also does not have any evidentiary value as the same has not been issued by the competent authority who is the Sub-Divisional Officer, as has been ordained by the Supreme Court on many a case. In support of his arguments, he places reliance on the decisions of High Court of judicature at Madras dated 26.04.2023 rendered in Crl.A. No. 790 of 2016 in the matter of Saravanan Vs. State by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pennagaram Police Station, Dharmapuri, District, that of the Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh and Others v. State through standing counsel and Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435, and that of this Court in the matter of Pilla Bai and others. V. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2023) 3 CGLJ 1 .
