MURUGAN ALIAS SETTU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 14.7.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal Nos. 981 and 986 of 2002, by which the High Court had disposed of the said appeals preferred by the Appellants against the judgment and order of the trial court dated 24.6.2002, in Sessions Case No. 30 of 2000, by which Appellant Murugan @ Settu (A.1) had been convicted under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as Rs. IPC) and awarded the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 and 7 years on those counts respectively. Other Appellants stood convicted under Sections 366 r/w 109 Indian Penal Code and were sentenced for 3 years rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) FACTS:

(3.) Shri G. Sivabalamurugan, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, has challenged the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below mainly on the grounds that the courts failed to appreciate that Shankari (PW.4) had gone voluntarily with A.1 as she was in love with him and wanted to marry him and not under compulsion of any one else. A.2 and A.3 had played no role in their affair or marriage. All independent witnesses i.e. Smt. Logammal (PW.7); Rajeshwari (PW.9) and Vijayalakshmi (PW.12) turned hostile. Shankari (PW.4) was major as opined by Dr. K. Gururaj (PW.20) who issued certificate to the effect that she was about 18 years of age. The courts erred in placing reliance upon the birth certificate of Shankari (PW.4) either given by the Municipality or by the School on the basis of the School Register. In the birth certificate issued by the Municipality, the name of the prosecutrix was not mentioned. Neither M.P. Ekambaram (PW.1), father nor Parimala (PW.15), mother of the prosecutrix, was able to state the correct age and they were not sure about the date of birth and age of Shankari (PW.4). In such a fact-situation, conviction of the Appellants is liable to be set aside.