MURUGAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein were arrayed as A1 to A3 in S.C. No.198 of 2016 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai. While A1 was accused of committing an offence under Sec. 366 IPC and Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act, A2 and A3 were charged with an offence under Sec. 366 r/w 109 IPC and Sec. 6 r/w 16 of the POCSO Act. Post trial, the learned trial Judge acquitted all the accused of offences under Sec. 6 and/or r/w 16 of POCSO Act, as the case may be, but convicted A1 under Sec. 366 of IPC and proceeded to convict A2 and A3 for offences under Sec. 366 r/w 109 IPC. The sentence imposed on them read as below:

(2.) The case of the prosecution commenced with registration of Ext.P12, FIR which was based on Ext.P4, complaint lodged by PW4, the brother of the victim of the offence and the case was registered as girl missing.

(3.) The accusation of the prosecution version is that couple of months prior to 8/12/2014, A2 along with some of his relatives approached PW2 requesting her to give her daughter, the victim to be, in marriage for A1. PW2 as well as PW4, brother of the victim, declined their request on the ground that the victim girl was of tender years. The victim was 16 years and 5 months old at the relevant time and had passed her school finals and was employed in a private concern. It was in this setting, on 08/12/2014, the victim girl did not return home from her workplace. Both PW2 and her son PW4 (brother of the victim) searched for the girl and as they could not trace the girl, on 9/12/2014, PW4, preferred the complaint.