Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 374 ipc in N.Nagaraj … vs State Rep. By on 9 January, 2017Matching Fragments
(iv) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with, and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.116 of 2015 and was made over to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, for trial. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 370 IPC r/w Section 17 of the BL Act, 374 IPC r/w Section 16 of the BL Act, Section 3 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation Act), 1986 and under Section 3(2)(6) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 against the accused and when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty'.
(vi) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found that the prosecution had established the case beyond reasonable doubt and held the accused guilty of the charges under Sections 370 IPC r/w Section 17 of the BL Act and 374 IPC r/w Section 16 of the BL Act and acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 3 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation Act), 1986 and under Section 3(2)(6) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989. The accused was convicted and sentenced as follows:
8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused all the relevant materials available on record.
9. The accused was found guilty of the offences under Section 370 IPC r/w 17 of the BL Act and Section 374 IPC r/w 16 of the BL Act.
10. (a) Section 370 of the IPC prior to the amendment on 03.02.2013, which is the relevant provision reads as follows:
11. This Court may note here that the ingredients of the offence under Section 370 of the IPC and Section 17 of the BL Act, are different. Similarly, the ingredients of the offence under Section 374 of the IPC and Section 16 of the BL Act, are different. However, the learned trial Judge has framed the first charge as 370 of the IPC r/w 17 of the BL Act and the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis second charge as 374 of the IPC r/w 16 of the BL Act, against the accused. As stated earlier, they are distinct offences and it is not known what the trial Court meant by framing the charges in such a manner. This Court has time and again reiterated that the charges must be clear and specific and not lead to any confusion. The offences also must be clearly spelled out. The two provisions that appear in the 1st and 2nd charges, are distinct and ingredients of the offence are different. There cannot be any charge that reads as Section 370 of the IPC r/w Section 17 of the BL Act or Section 374 of the IPC r/w Section 16 of the BL Act.