SELVARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first and third accused Selvaraj and Veerappan in S.C.No. 28 of 2006, who faced trial under Section 364 IPC before Sessions Court, Mahila Court, Perambalur District and who were convicted under Section 363 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 25 months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/~ each and in default to undergo 50 days of rigorous imprisonment are the appellants herein. The two appellants along with the second accused Vajik Batcha were charged with the commission of offence under Section 364 IPC. The second accused Vajik Batcha absconded and the case against him was split as P.R.C.No. 4 of 2006. The learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur, in the charge against the accused under Section 364 IPC, charged that, on 07.06.1999 in the afternoon at 12.30 p.m., the first and third accused herein, who are the appellants herein along with the absconding second accused had kidnapped Akalya, aged 5 years, daughter of Murugan and grand daughter of the complainant Kaliyaperumal in view of prior enmity with respect to payment of money and removed her from lawful custody of her guardian. It was also charged that the accused had kidnapped Akalya with intention to murder her. They were therefore charged with commission of offence under Section 364 IPC. As stated the second accused absconded and the first and third accused alone were sent up for trial. The first and third accused denied the charge. The prosecution was then called upon to prove the charges. To substantiate the charge during trial, the prosecution examined PW~1 to PW~9 witness and also marked Exs. P~1 to P~6. The accused were then questioned with respect to incriminating circumstances under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Their statements were also recorded. By Judgment dated 22.12.2006, the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur, found the present appellants / first and third accused guilt of offence punishable under Section 363 IPC and not under Section 364 IPC. They were sentenced to the imprisonments as stated above.

(2.) Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/ the first and third accused have filed the present Appeal.

(3.) Heard arguments advanced by Mr. N.U Pressanna, for M/s. Sai Bharath & Ilan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.B.Arul Mozhi Maran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), appearing for the respondent.