Madras High Court
Suresh vs State Rep. By on 24 August, 2017
Author: V.Bharathidasan
Bench: V.Bharathidasan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.08.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.A(MD).No.433 of 2006 Suresh ... Petitioner/Accused -Vs- State rep. By The Inspector of Police, K.Pudur Police Station, Madurai . .... Respondent/Respondent (Cr.No.382/02) Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgement made in S.C.No.150 of 2005 on the file of the Sessions Judge/Mahila Court/MagalirNeethimandram, Madurai, dated 29.08.2006. For Appellant : Mr.T.Palanisamy Legal Aid counsel For Respondent : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran Additional Public Prosecutor :JUDGMENT
Challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge/Mahila Court/MagalirNeethimandram, Madurai in S.C.No.150 of 2005, dated 29.08.2006, the present criminal appeal has been filed.
2. The sole accused in S.C.No. 150 of 2005, on the file of the Sessions Judge/Mahila Court/MagalirNeethimandram, Madurai is the appellant herein. He stood charged for an offence under Sections 341, 343 and 366 I.P.C. The trial court convicted the appellant/accused under Section 341 I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo one month simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo one week simple imprisonment and under Section 343 I.P.C, the trial court sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment and under Section 366 I.P.C, the trial court sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo nine months rigorous imprisonment. Now, challenging the above conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this court with this appeal.
3.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
i)P.W.5 is the victim in this case. She is the wife of P.W.1. The marriage between the accused and P.W.5 took place two months prior to the occurrence. Before their marriage accused was in love with PW5, and he proposed to marry her. But the family members refused to give in marriage P.W.5 to him. In the above circumstances, on 08.07.2002 at about 1.00 p.m, while the victim came to her matrimonial house from her parental house, the appellant along with four other persons abducted her and took her to Tirunelveli and wrongfully confined her therein. Thereafter, on coming to know about the same, P.W.1 has filed a complaint before the respondent police. P.W.8, Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the complaint, registered a case in Cr.No.382 of 2002 for the offence under Sections 143 and 363 I.P.C and prepared the printed copy of F.I.R (Ex.P.3) and he commenced investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P. 2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.4) and also recorded the statement of witnesses. Subsequently, on 09.07.2002, he arrested A-1 and also rescued the victim and thereafter, he altered the F.I.R for an offence under Section 366 I.P.C and prepared an alteration report (Ex.P.9). P.W.9, Inspector of Police (Law and Order), attached to K.Pudur Police Station, on receipt of the altered F.I.R continued the investigation and he recorded the statement of witnesses. In the meantime, he was transferred to some other Station. Hence, P.W.10, Inspector of Police, attached to K.Pudur Police Station, continued the investigation and after completing the investigation, filed a final report.
4.Considering the above materials, the trial Court framed charges, as detailed in the second paragraph of this order and the accused denied the same. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 10witnesses and exhibited 5 documents.
5.Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the husband of the victim PW5. According to him, the marriage between them took place two months prior to the occurrence. The appellant along with some other persons abducted the victim, while she was returning from her parental house. Then, he filed a complaint and the police also arrested the accused and rescued the victim. While enquiring the victim, she has stated that the accused abducted her and took her to Tirunelveli, where, he forcefully tried to marry the victim. P.W.2 is the father of P.W.5. He also stated about the abduction of P.W.5 from Madurai to Tirunelveli and wrongful detention for three days. P.W.3 turned hostile. P.W.4 is the witness to the Observation Mahazar. According to P.W.5, the appellant was in love with the victim girl and when he proposed to marry her, the father of the victim refused. Hence, the appellant threatened her father by saying that he would not allow her daughter (victim) to live peacefully. On the date of occurrence, at about 1.00 p.m, while she was walking near Karpagam Nagar Auto Stand, the appellant came there in an auto along with four others and put a kerchief on her nose. Thereafter, she became unconscious and he took her to a house and detained her and threatened her to live with him. Thereafter, the police arrested them at Mattuthavani Bus Stand, Madurai. P.W.6 is the mother of the victim. She also spoken about the occurrence and arrest of the accused. P.W.7 is the sister of P.W.6. She has also stated that she was taken to Tirunelveli to identify the accused. P.W.8 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the F.I.R. P.Ws.9 and 10 conducted the investigation and filed a final report.
6.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied the same. The accused had examined one Perumal as a defence witness. According to him, Before the marriage, P.W.5 was in love with the appellant and against her wish, she was given in marriage to P.W.1. Since P.W.5 is not willing to live with P.W.1, she has attempted to commit suicide, she also removed her mangalsuthra, and gone to Kerala, she also wished to live with the appellant. Thereafter, her parents threatened her to give witness against the appellant. Considering the above materials, the trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the judgment.
7.I have heard Mr.T.Palanisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the records carefully.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that even as per the evidence of P.W.5, absolutely, it is seen that there is no abduction and wrongful confinement. It is only P.W.5 went along with the appellant from Madurai to Tirunelveli and stayed there for a period of three days. During that period, the appellant did not misbehaved with the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant took her back to Madurai Bus Stand, where he was arrested with P.W.5. In the above circumstances, the charge levelled against the appellant is not maintainable and the prosecution also not proved the offence beyond any reasonable doubt. The trial court, without considering the evidence available on record in proper perspective, has wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant. Hence, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is to be set aside.
9.Per Contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that it is the evidence of P.W.5 to the effect that the accused abducted the victim by using an intoxicating materials and forcefully took her to Tirunelveli, where, he wrongfully confined her for three days. Thereafter, he took her back to Madurai, where the police arrested the appellant along with victim, which is also corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6. Considering all these materials, the trial court rightly convicted the appellant. There is no reason to interfere with the well-considered judgment of the trial court.
10.I have considered the rival submissions.
11.P.W.5 is victim in this case. According to her, on the date of occurrence at about 1.00 p.m, while she was walking in Karpagam Nagar, the appellant came in an auto and closed her face by using a kerchief took her to Thirunelveli and there compelled her to marry him, but she refused. Then, he took her back to Madurai from Tirunelveli. The police arrested them at Madurai Mattuthavani Bus Stand. According to her, it is seen that she was taken from Madurai to Tirunelveli and then, the appellant took her back to Madurai in a bus and they were arrested at Mattuthavani Bus Stand. But from the evidence of P.W.1, it is seen that the accused had taken her to Tiruchendur, where, he forced P.W.5 to marry him, where, she refused. P.W.2 also stated that P.W.5 was taken to Tirunelveli thereafter. From their evidence, P.W.5 went along with the appellant from Madurai to Tirunelveli and from Tirunelveli to Tiruchendur and thereafter from Tirunelveli to Madurai. She was with the appellant for three days. During that period, she did not raise any objection or complaint. From that, it is seen that the victim went along with the appellant willingly and stayed at Tirunelveli for three days. Thereafter, the appellant took her back to Madurai in a bus. Apart from that, there are lot of contradictions in the evidence regarding the arrest. Even though P.W.5 said that the police arrested the appellant at Mattuthavani Bus stand were rescued her, P.W.8, Sub-Inspector of Police stated that both the appellant and P.W.5 was rescued near 100 feet road, K.Pudur at Madurai. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of P.W.5. Then, he arrested the appellant. It also created a doubt in the prosecution case.
12.In the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt and henc,e the appellant is entitled for acquittal. The trial court, without considering the materials in proper perspective, has convicted the appellant. Hence, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial corut is liable to be set aside.
13. In the result, this Criminal appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted from all the charges. Fine amount, if any paid by the appellant should be refunded to him.
To
1.The
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.