J. KANAGARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 91 of 2012, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichirappalli. He stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. By Judgment dated 31.07.2012, he has been convicted under Sections 376 r/w Section 511 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence under Section 376 r/w Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Sessions Judge has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 85,000/ -, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and for the offence under Section 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. As against the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: -

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the evidence of PW -1 deserves to be rejected, because, there are materials to show that PW -1 had been tutored to depose falsely against the accused. The learned counsel would further submit that PW -2 and PW -3 have got enough motive against the accused on account of some money transaction, as spoken to by DW -1 and because of the said motive, only to wreak vengeance, they have made such false complaint against the accused and that is how, the accused has been implicated. The learned counsel would further submit that the medical evidence does not corroborate the eye - witness account of PW -1. He would further submit that there is an inordinate delay in preferring the complaint. For these reasons, according to the learned counsel, the appellant is entitled for acquittal.