PONMALAI THEVAR Vs. D RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.5/2000 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate - VII, Coimbatore. He filed a private complaint against the respondents stating that the respondents committed offence punishable under Sections 344, 363, 368, 469, 506(2) IPC r/w 149 IPC and that private complaint was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal was filed.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case of the appellant is that his son Chandrasekar was employed as Sub -Inspector of Police and his marriage with one Thilagavathi, daughter of Rajagopal was fixed to be solmenised on 3.5.1999 and other arrangements regarding the marriage were also made. While so, the first respondent with the intention of performing the marriage of his step sister Pankajam, asked PW.3 Pankajam to give a phone call to Chandrasekar, son of the appellant, to come to temple at Eachaneri, Coimbatore, and when his son went to the temple, he was taken by the respondents and he was compelled to marry PW.3 Pankajam. The appellant was informed by the first respondent on 3.9.1999 that the marriage between the son of the appellant and Pankajam was performed by them on 16.8.1999 and the marriage had to be registered and asked the appellant to come to the Sub -Registrar's Office, Singanallur, and before the Sub -Registrar's office, son of the appellant was threatened but he refused to admit the marriage before the Sub Registrar and therefore, the marriage could not be registered and as the respondents kidnapped the son of the appellant on 16.8.1999 and forced him to marry PW.3 Pankajam, all of them have committed various offences as aforesaid and hence, they are liable to be punished for those offences.

(3.) THE learned counsel further submitted that PW.2 son of the appellant gave evidence regarding kidnapping committed by the respondents and forcible marriage performed by the respondents between the appellant's son Chandrasekar and PW.3 Pankajam, and also the attempt made by them to register the marriage and that was prevented by PW.2, and these facts were also spoken to by PW.3 Pankajam who was forcibly given in marriage to PW.2 and that marriage was not valid marriage according to law and he, therefore, submitted that having regard to the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, the trial Court ought to have convicted the respondents for the offences aforesaid but the trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 acquitted the respondents and therefore, the appeal is filed.