MURUGAN Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and conviction rendered by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District in S.C.No. 217 of 2006, dated 05.06.2007.

(2.) THE appellant is arrayed as Accused No. 1 in S.C.No. 217 of 2006, on the file of Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District and he along with A2 stood charged and tried for the commission of offences under Sections 366(A) and 376 of IPC. The trial Court vide Judgment dated 05.06.2007, had acquitted the Accused No. 2 but, convicted and sentenced Accused No. 1 for the offence under Section 366(A) of IPC - 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/ -, in default, to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment and further convicted the appellant / A1 for the offence under Section 376 of IPC. - 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/ -, in default, to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment. The trial Court directed that the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently and also setoff the period of incarceration in terms of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The appellant / A1, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court vide impugned judgment, has filed this Criminal Appeal.

(3.) P .W.2 is the mother of the P.W.1 / victim girl and she lodged a complaint under Ex.P1, to P.W.13, the Sub -Inspector of Police, attached to Sayarpuram Police Station, Thoothukudi District. In Ex.P1, Complaint, it is stated among other things that she is residing with her husband and out of wedlock, she begotten three female children and two of them already got married and the 3rd child is the victim girl and she is studying 9th Standard in Pannavilai Takkar Higher Secondary School. She would further state that P.W.1 on 25.07.2005 at about 7.00 p.m., left for school but she did not return till night and therefore, she along with her daughter, viz., Yesuvadiyal (not examined as witness) her husband Muniyasamy (P.W.3) made a search but they were unable to trace her and they also searched in various other places. On 30.07.2005, in the morning hours, when they were made enquiry, they came to know that the Accused No. 1 used to castigate and taunt her daughter / P.W.1 and from 25.07.2005 onwards Murugan is also missing and therefore apprehending that A2 has also played his role lodged a complaint. P.W.13, on receipt of Ex.P1, complaint, registered an FIR in Crime No. 160 of 2005 against the above said accused for the commission of offence under Section 366(A) of IPC. The printed FIR was marked as Ex.P9.