Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court), Salem, in S.C. No.201/2014, vide judgment dated 16.9.2021 is put in issue by the appellant by filing the present appeal.
2. The appellant was charged and tried for the offences u/s 366 and 376 (1) IPC and after trial, the court below found the appellant guilty of the offences u/s 366 and 376 (1) IPC and convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years together with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence u/s 366 IPC and for the offence u/s 376 (1) IPC, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years together with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period of incarceration already suffered by the appellant was directed to be set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
13. The trial court, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence and other materials, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid aggrieved by which the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the case of prosecution with regard to the offence u/s 366 IPC has not been proved, as even P.W.5, the victim, has clearly spoken that she went along with the appellant. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ When P.W.5 had voluntarily gone with the appellant, the offence u/s 366 IPC cannot stand.
24. To find out whether the charge relating to kidnapping u/s 366 IPC is made out, which according to the court below has been made out, this Court perused the evidence of the victim, P.W.5 as well as P.W.1, the father of the victim, who had lodged the complaint, Ex.P-1. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 reveals that on 5.2.2010, P.W.s 1 and 2 had been out of the village to attend a function and upon hearing that P.W.5 is missing, P.W.s 1 and 2 had rushed back to the village. According to the deposition of P.W.1, he had searched for P.W.5 along with his relatives and on coming to know about the fact that P.W.5 was taken by the accused to Palavadi to his uncle’s daughter’s house, P.W.1 had gone over there. The deposition of P.W.1 before the Court is very clear, in that he had https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ deposed that the accused had taken P.W.5 along with him to Palavadi. There is no whisper of kidnapping in the deposition of P.W.1.
42. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed in part by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded u/s 366 IPC, but confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the court below u/s 376 IPC. Fine amount imposed on the appellant u/s 376 IPC is also confirmed. It is reported that this Court had granted https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ suspension of sentence pending the appeal. The court below is directed to take steps to secure the presence of the appellant and commit him to prison to undergo the balance period of punishment imposed upon him. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant shall be set off as provided for u/s 428 Cr.P.C.