ANNAKODI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision, arising against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, is for the offences under Ss. 363 and 375, IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and 7 years respectively. The prosecutrix P.W. 3 is said to have been aged only 13 years at the time of the occurrence and the revision petitioner, who is alleged to have taken prosecutrix to different places after kidnapping her, was arrested after 10 days along with the victim.

(2.) The prosecution case is as follows : P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the parents of the prosecutrix P.W. 3, residents of Pappanaickenpatti Village in Madurai District. On 8-5-87 when P.W. 1 had been to his land for watering and P.W. 2 his wife also had been to a temple to attend a festival and P.W. 3, the victim girl alone was in the house with one Vooral, a servant maid. On that day early morning at 05-00 a.m., when P.W. 3 was sweeping in front of her house, this revision petitioner accused, who is related to the servant maid Vooral, started conversation with her (P.W. 3). On seeing this, the relative of P.W. 3 by name Seshuraman threatened that he would inform this to her father and asked him to cut her into pieces. So, both P.W. 3 and the revision petitioner became frightened and this revision petitioner asked her to accompany him to go elsewhere, for hiding themselves for about 10 days to save her from the wrath of her father. Though, she initially refused, as he said that it was only for her safety, she agreed for that. When this revision petitioner insisted her to bring cash and also wear her jewels, she declined for that but he getting the key of the box from her, himself opened the box and took the cash with him. He advised her to come to the tank under the guise of going to the tank for taking bath and that he would take her from there to the place of her their destination, or he would kill her for non-compliance. So, P.W. 3 with the jewels joined the revision petitioner near the tank and both of them went to different places and stayed in the house of the relatives of the revision petitioner, where she was raped by the revision petitioner. In the meanwhile, P.W. 1 returned in the evening from the field and finding that his daughter was not in the house and the case box kept open, searched for her in the adjacent villages and having failed to trace her, he launched a complaint on 9-5-87 at 10-00 p.m. in Saptur Police Station. On 18-5-87 at about 12-00 Noon, P.W. 10, the Inspector of Police arrested this revision petitioner and P.W. 3 near a bus stop in Anaikarapatti.

(3.) The Courts below were satisfied with the evidence of P.W. 3 for the kidnapping and rape and therefore this revision petitioner has been convicted in the manner stated above.