SENTHILKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the judgment dated 27.9.2006, passed by the Additional District Sessions Court/Fast Track Court, Namakkal, in C.A.No.27 of 2006 confirming the judgment dated 4.5.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Assistant Sessions Judge, Namakkal, in S.C.No.42 of 2005, this criminal revision case is focussed.

(2.) THE epitome and the long and short of the germane facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus: (a) THE police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. as against the accused for the offence under Sections 450, 376(1), 417 and 506(2) IPC. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was conducted.(b) During trial, on the prosecution side, the victim girl was examined as P.W.1 along with 12 others as P.Ws.2 to 13 and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On the accused side, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. (c) Ultimately, the trial Court recorded the conviction and imposed the following sentences.TABLE(d) Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the convictions recorded and sentences imposed by the trial Court, the accused preferred appeal C.A.No.27 of 2006 before the Sessions Court, which Court modified the convictions and sentences as under:-TABLE

(3.) THE point for consideration is as to whether both the Courts below were perverse in convicting the accused for the offences under Section 376 and 417 IPC based on non-application of mind in appreciating the evidence placed before them.