(1.) THE sole accused in Sessions Case No. 133 of 2006, decided by Mahalir Neethimandram, Tirunelveli, has come forward with the appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the Judgment of the trial Court, both in respect of conviction and also in respect of sentence.
(2.) A case was registered by P.W.10, the Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palayamkottai in Crime No. 16 of 2005 for alleged offences under Sections 354 and 376 r/w. 511 IPC and also an offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998. Initially investigation of the case was done by P.W.11 -Tmt. Nalini, the then Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palayamkottai. Subsequently, her successor in office viz., P.W.12 -Tmt. Maria Ronickam, Inspector of Police, continued the investigation and submitted a final report dated 30.01.2006 accusing the appellant herein of committing the above said offences on 20.07.2005 at about 4.00 p.m. The learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tirunelveli, took it on file as P.R.C. No. 2 of 2006, supplied copies of the documents sought to be relied on by the prosecution to the appellant herein/accused and committed the case for trial to the Court of Session, Tirunelveli Division, as one of the offences alleged against the appellant/accused, viz., the offence punishable under Section 376 r/w. Section 511 IPC was exclusively triable by a Court of Session. Thus, the case was taken on file by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli as Sessions Case No. 133 of 2006 and the same was made over to the Mahalir Neethimandram on point of jurisdiction, for disposal according to law.
(3.) THE learned trial Judge considered the evidence after hearing the arguments advanced on both sides and upon such consideration, arrived at a conclusion that the charge under Section 376 r/w. 511 IPC alone stood proved, whereas the other two charges viz., charges for offences under Section 354 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 were not proved. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge recorded conviction convicting the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 376 r/w. 511 IPC. After giving an opportunity to the appellant/accused to make his representation regarding punishment, the learned trial Judge sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - with a further direction that in case of default in payment of fine, he should undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Incorporating the order of conviction and sentence, the learned trial Judge pronounced the Judgment on 31.01.2007. The said Judgment is challenged in the present appeal, both in respect of conviction and sentence.