Madras High Court
Mani vs The State Rep on 14 June, 2019
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.06.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl.R.C(MD).No.286 of 2010
and
Crl.R.C(MD).No.3 of 2010
Mani ... Petitioner
Vs.,
The State rep., by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Kulithalai, Karur District.
(in Crime No.3 of 2002) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Code of Criminal
Procedure, to call for the records in S.C.No.119 of 2005 on the file of the
Assistant Sessions Judge, Kulithalai and set aside the judgment dated
06.11.2007 passed in S.C.NO.119 of 2005 by the Assistant Sessions
Judge, Kulithalai confirmed by the learned District and Sessions Judge,
Karur in C.A.No.58 of 2007 on 07.07.2009.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.M.Madasamy
For Respondent : Mr.A.Robinson
Government Advocate(Crl.side)
ORDER
The revision petitioner was found guilty of the offence under Sections 417 and 376 of IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years http://www.judis.nic.in 2 rigorous imprisonment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kuzhithalai vide judgment dated 06.11.2007. He also levied with fine amount. Questioning the same, he filed Crl.A.No.58 of 2007. But the lower appellate Court by judgment dated 07.07.2009 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Challenging the same, this criminal revision case came to be filed.
2.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner namely Mani is very much with P.W.4-Chithra, who is said to be victim in this case. The male child namely Lokeshwaran was born to them on 25.09.2002. Lokeshwaran is presently studying in 12th standard in Government Higher Secondary School, Rajandarthirumalai. The three, who are present in person, give me a clear impression that they are a happy family.
3.In this case, the petitioner has been charged with offence under Section 376 and 417 IPC. A mere look at the evidence of P.W.4 indicates that the relationship between them was rather consensual. Therefore, I hold that the offence under Section 376 of IPC is not made out. The Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.4 from a http://www.judis.nic.in 3 proper perspective. Therefore, the finding of conviction rendered by the Courts below in respect of offence under Section 376 IPC is set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the offence under Section 376 IPC. As far as the offence under Section 417 IPC is concerned, I am of the view that the offence is clearly made out in this case. But then, this is a compoundable offence. The victim is willing to compound the offence with the revision petitioner. Therefore, notwithstanding the conviction rendered by the Courts below, since the victim P.W.4 /Chithra has come forward to compound the offence with the revision petitioner, the offence under Section 417 IPC is compounded and in view of the composition of the offence, it will have the effect of acquittal of the revision petitioner. The judgments of the Courts below are accordingly set aside. This criminal revision case is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
14.06.2019 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No rmk http://www.judis.nic.in 4 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmk To
1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kulithalai, Karur District.
2.The Assistant Sessions Judge, Kulithalai.
2.The District and Sessions Judge, Karur. Crl.R.C(MD).No.286 of 2010 http://www.judis.nic.in 5 14.06.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in