Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. This Court considered the rival submissions of both side counsels and perused the materials available on record and the precedents relied by both the counsels.

8. This Court is taking the judicial notice of the fact that during the first Corona Wave, first Covid Restriction was imposed by the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.MS.No.152 dated 23.03.2020 and the same was periodically extended, more particularly, at the time of occurrence, the notification was issued by the Revenue and Disaster Management (DM-II) Department on 31.05.2020 vide G.O.MS.No.262. As per the notification, nobody was allowed travel without obtaining proper permission from the competent officers. If anybody travelled and the same amounted to offence https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis under the various Act. In the said circumstances, the case of the prosecution that the appellant kidnapped the victim girl to the faraway place namely, Karaikal, from Sattur Taluk, Virudunagar District, without any documents is not accepted.

9. Further, the prosecution case is that the appellant kidnapped the victim girl to Karaikal and stayed in the house of P.W.4 along with the victim girl and made sexual assault upon her. P.W.4 turned hostile and there was no evidence adduced to prove that the appellant and the victim girl stayed at Karaikal. In the said circumstances, the case of the prosecution that the appellant committed the sexual assault in the house of P.W.4 is not proved.

10. The case of the prosecution that the appellant kidnapped P.W.2, the victim girl is not proved beyond any doubt. As argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, during the Covid-19 pandemic, admittedly, there was no functioning of Schools. Hence, the initial version of the victim girl that she left her home after informing her grand-mother that she is going to School itself is false.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

11. The prosecution also not proved through the evidence that the appellant kidnapped the victim in his friend's vehicle. The owner of the vehicle was not examined. No document was produced to prove the vehicle has due permission to enter into the Karaikal in the course of strict movement restriction during the first Covid Wave. The same also gets support from the different versions relating to the arrival of the victim girl to her native place i.e., according to the Investigating Officer, he went to the Karaikal and rescued the victim girl. According to the victim, the appellant dropped her in the place nearby her residence. According to the family members of the victim, the victim girl herself reached her house. In view of the three diametrically opposite versions, the suggestion of the appellant that he never kidnapped the victim girl in the car and took her to the Karaikal and stayed at P.W.4's house is probable one. To add further, it is the case of the victim that she voluntarily departed the company of the appellant on hearing the news from her aunt that her mother consumed poison. To prove the same, no evidence is adduced by the prosecution. Not even they examined her aunt. The victim girl was kidnapped in the vehicle of the friend of the appellant is also not proved. The owner of the vehicle was not examined as witness. Hence, in all circumstances, this Court finds that the case of the prosecution that the appellant kidnapped the victim girl https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, kidnapping of the victim girl is not also proved.