PANCHAPATHI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/accused was convicted for the offences punishable U/s. 366 and 376 IPC. and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 366 IPC. and for the offence U/s. 376 IPC. , he was sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment, with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, kancheepuram, Chingelpet District, in S. C. NO. 119 of 2002. Aggrieved against the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused before this court.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is as follows: p. W. 3 is the victim in the case and she was 16 years old at the time of occurrence, viz. , 23. 11. 2000. P. W. 1 is the grandfather and P. W. 2 is the mother of P. W. 3. P. W. 3 was working as a maid servant at the residence of the appellant temporarily. Even earlier, the appellant was friendly with p. W. 3. On 23. 11. 2000, the appellant proposed to go to hydrabad, where he was working as a Lift Operator. On the request of the appellant, P. W. 3 went to a nearby temple and there, they have planned to go to Hyderabad. They have proceeded to Kancheepuram and thereafter, reached Hyderabad by bus. The appellant and P. W. 3 stayed at the residence of his friend. P. W. 3 requested the friend of the appellant to perform her marriage with the appellant, for which, the appellant and his friend agreed. At that time, it is alleged that the appellant persuaded to have sex with her and it was declined by P. W. 3. The appellant alleged to have promised her that it is he who is going to marry her and therefore, they can have such sex. Thereafter, the appellant compelled her, removed her dress and committed the offence in spite of P. W. 3 raising voice. The appellant continued the said offence for the next one week. Thereafter, the appellant received a telephonic call from the native place stating that the relatives of P. W. 3 are coming to Hyderabad. On their arrival, P. W. 3 was taken back and entrusted with the parents. In the meantime, after knowing that P. W. 3 is missing, P. W. 1, grandfather of P. W. 3, lodged a report with the police on 01. 12. 2000 stating that her granddaughter is missing.

(3.) (a) The trial Court examined 15 witnesses and marked 24 exhibits to substantiate the case of the prosecution. On the side of the defence, neither oral nor documentary materials were produced.