SATHISHKUMAR Vs. STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The convicted sole accused is the appellant herein. The respondent police has filed final report against the appellant herein/accused for the alleged offences under Sections 366-A, 496 and 376 IPC. After observing the formalities, the same set of charges were framed against the accused and in the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked documents Exs.P.1 to P.14 and on the side of the defence, no witness was examined but three documents were marked as Exs.D.1 to D.3 and no material objects were produced.

(2.) On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, for the reasons recorded therein, the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, by judgment dated 09.02011, in S.C.No.16 of 2010, had acquitted the accused under Sections 496 and 376 IPC and on appreciation of the evidence available on record and following the decision of this Court [Anandhan Vs. The State, (1995) CriLJ 632], has convicted the accused under Section 363 IPC by altering the Section 366 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

(3.) The respondent police has registered a case on 29.12.2008 in Crime No.2364 of 2008 for the offence under Section 366-A IPC based on the complaint preferred by one Natarajan-P.W.1 for kidnapping his daughter namely, Saranya (Aged 17 years) by the appellant and after investigation, the respondent police has filed final report for the offences under Sections 366-A, 496 and 376 IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.5, Salem, and the case has been taken on file in P.R.C.No.22 of 2009 and then, it was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Salem, and case was taken on file in S.C.No.16 of 2010 and made over to Mahila Court, Salem.