LAWS(MAD)-2020-7-47

R VELU Vs. STATE

Decided On July 16, 2020
R Velu Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sessions Judge, MahalirNeethiMandram, Chennai, by judgment dated 08.08.2014 passed in S.C.No.190 of 2013 has convicted the appellant/accused under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years also and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and under Section 417 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and directed that the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the appellant/accused to run concurrently and challenging the same, the criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused.

(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the victim girl was residing opposite to the accused house and six months prior to 11.05.2010, the accused took the victim girl to his residence for the purpose of arranging the marriage and at that time, no one was present in the residence of the accused and the accused enticed the victim girl by assuring her that he would marry her and thereby, directed her to submit to his desires and though the victim girl had resisted to the overacts made by the accused, the accused forced the victim girl to have sexual intercourse with him against her will and consent and thus committed rape on her and thereby, according to the prosecution, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 IPC.

(3.) To sustain the prosecution case, PWs 1 to 9 were examined. Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. No Mo has been marked. On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.Cwith reference to the incriminating evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses and the accused had denied the same and according to the accused, the case has been falsely foisted against him on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the accused, no oral and documentary evidence has been adduced and no M.O has been marked.