RAGAVAN ALIAS PUVIAL RAGAVAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 17.10.2007 passed in S.C. No. 88/2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC I, Thanjavur, thereby convicting and sentencing the 1st Appellant/A1 for the offence under Section 363 of IPC to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment and convicting and sentencing each of the Appellants 2 to 5/A2 to A5 for the offence under Section 363 read with 109 of IPC to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment. The case of the Prosecution is that the 1st Appellant/A1 and the minor victim girl, P.W. 5 Ramya loved each other and on 4.10.2005, A1 taken away the victim girl for marrying her and the Appellants 2 to 5/A2 to A5 abetted the said act of A1. A1 took the victim girl to Thiruppur and had sex with her. Hence, the Appellants were charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 366A and 376 read with 109 of IPC.

(2.) The case was taken on file in S.C. No. 88/2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC I, Thanjavur and necessary charges were framed. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution 13 witnesses (P.W. 1 and P.W. 13) and also marked Exs. P1 to P9 and marked five material objects (M.O. 1 to M.O. 5). On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused have come with the version of total denial and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. On the side of defence, D.W. 1 was examined and Ex. D1 to D4 were marked. The court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and looking into the materials available on record, found the accused/appellants guilty and awarded punishments as referred to above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.

(3.) This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the material records placed.