V.GIRI ALIAS ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused in S.C.No.302 of 2015 on the file of the Mahila Court (Fast Mahila Court)/Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, is the appellant and he was prosecuted for the commission of the offences under Sections 294(b), 326, 307 I.P.C., and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998. The trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as follows:

(2.) The facts leading to the present appeal, relevant for the purpose of disposal, briefly narrated, are as follows:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that the case projected by the prosecuted is full of infirmities and inconsistencies and except Ex.P.1 - F.I.R., all the documents have been belatedly dispatched to the Court only on 14.03.2014 and the huge delay in dispatching the material documents has not also been explained by the prosecution. The testimonies of the other eyewitnesses cannot be believed for the reason that they were co-workers and they were interested witnesses and no attempt has been made to examine any independent witnesses, though the offence is said to have been committed in a public place. As per the testimony of the Doctor, who treated P.W.1, aruval is said to have been used by the appellant/accused and the possibility of injuries may also be on account of the instruments used by the masons and in the absence of recovery of weapon, aruval which is said to have been used by the appellant/accused, cannot be said that he committed the grievous offence. P.W.1 has also got an axe to grind for the reason that originally, she worked as a menial under the appellant/accused and later on, left the job and therefore, lodged a false complaint. Since the case of the prosecution bristles with very many inconsistencies and infirmities, the trial Court, in any event, ought to have awarded the benefit of doubt and acquitted the appellant/accused.