LAWS(MAD)-2008-4-195

KUMAR Vs. STATE

Decided On April 01, 2008
KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE REP. BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I " Prologue Seldom, criminal trials bring before us persons, who are accused of acts of quivering barbarity. One such act is the offence of rape, which was more in tune with tribal society, and is in existence even now and calls for stringent punishment. This case is even more dreadful as the offence of rape was committed by the accused on his own sister-in-law, and the situation became much more worse, as the sister-in-law of the accused as well as her tiny tot, a thirteen months old girl baby were charred. II " Charge

(2.) THE above-said ghastly incident was said to have taken place on 15.8.2003 within the jurisdiction of Yercaud Police Station. This horrifying issue, stimulated the Superintendent of Police, Salem District, P.W.31 to undertake investigation by himself and to register an FIR in Crime No.350 of 2003, initially for an offence punishable under Section 304-B, IPC, which was subsequently altered, pursuant to which the appellant was tried and thereafter, convicted and sentenced to undergo (i) seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, on year rigorous imprisonment for having committed the offence of rape on the deceased mother under Section 376, IPC; (ii) life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, one year rigorous imprisonment for having murdered the deceased mother and 13 months old girl baby under Section 302 (2 counts) IPC; (iii) two years imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, one month rigorous imprisonment for having poured kerosene on the mother and 13 months old baby and set them on fire in order to screen the offence under Section 302 read with 201 (2 counts), IPC; and (iv) seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, one year rigorous imprisonment for having caused criminal intimidation to P.W.2 under Section 506(2), IPC. III " THE case of the prosecution

(3.) MR. K.V. Sreedharan, learned counsel for the appellant, challenges the order of conviction and sentence as follows: