SAKTHIVEL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Magalir Court, Cuddalore, by judgment dated 18.01.2013 passed in S.C.No.224 of 2011 has convicted the appellant/accused under Section 366 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and acquitted him of the offence under Section 376 IPC. Impugning the conviction and sentence imposed on him, the appellant/accused has preferred the criminal appeal.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, the victim girl was studying 11th standard and the victim girl's brother Mohan and the accused are friends and the accused used to come to the victim girl's house for meeting Mohan and as a result of which developed friendship with the victim girl and loved her and on hearing the same, the accused parents approached the victim girl's parents and requested to give the victim girl in marriage to the accused. However, the victim girl's parents refused to the same and consequentially, on 21.02.2011 at about 8.00 am, while the victim girl was proceeding to the school in her bicycle, the accused by luring her that he would marry her, abducted the victim girl to the Veludaiyanpatti temple and tied Thali in the temple and also had sexual intercourse with her and thus, the accused had committed the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 IPC.

(3.) To sustain the prosecution case, PWs 1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P1 to 9 were marked. No MO has been marked.On the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C qua the incriminating evidence tendered against him by the prosecution witnesses and the accused had denied the same and according to the accused, he and the victim girl had been in love with each other and as the victim girl's parents were making arrangements to give her in marriage with another person and as the victim girl approached him complaining that she would commit suicide if the same were to be accomplished and accordingly, put forth the case that the victim girl on her own left her parents and came with him and thus, according to the accused, he has not committed the offences levelled against him. On the side of the accused, no oral and documentary evidence has been adduced. No MO has been marked.