VANISHREE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Principal Sessions Court, Salem convicted the appellants 1 to 3 herein and sentenced vide impugned judgment dtd. 30/4/2015, made in S.C.No.242 of 2005, as follows:- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_99_LAWS(MAD)12_2022_1.jpg</IMG>

(2.) These three appellants were also charged for offence under Sec.

(3.) (2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 r/w. Sec. 34 I.P.C., but the trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove the said charge and acquitted the appellants. 3. The gist of the prosecution is that Kamatchi, the daughter of PW.1 was working as a maid in the house of Vanishree/the 1st appellant herein. She had been working in their house for nearly 7 months. For about 5 months, she was taken care well, but when Kamatchi saw Vanishree and the 2nd appellant /2nd accused in a compromise position, they both started physically torturing her. The 3rd appellant/3rd accused joined with other accused and subjected Kamatchi to brutal attack and as a consequence, she was taken to a private hospital for the injuries. This incident came to the notice of a Women Association at Salem by name[XXXXXXXX] and they informed the police on 11/7/2003. The respondent police went to Selva Hospital recorded the statement of Kamatchi and registered the First Information Report in Crime No.393 of 2003 dtd. 11/7/2003 against these three appellants for the alleged offences under Secs. 341, 343, 323 and 506(i) I.P.C. Later through investigation, it was found that the appellants with intention to cause death, the 1st appellant tried to strangulate Kamatchi. The 2nd and 3rd appellants had attacked her all over the body with stick. All the three accused has confined her in a room to prevent her from disclosing the illegal intimacy between A1 and A2. The 2nd accused has also forced the victim girl/ Kamatchi to dance for cinema tune and made 1st appellant sons to urinate in the mouth of Kamatchi. Since the victim Kamatchi belong to scheduled caste charged under Secs. 3(2)(v) SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989, r/w.34 IPC, Sec. 342 I.P.C., 307 r/w.34 I.P.C against A1 to A3 and Sec. 355 I.P.C., against A2 were framed.