RADHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The convicted accused is the revision petitioner herein. She has filed this Criminal Revision Case to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon her in S.C. No. 479 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional Sub Judge, Thanjavur, by judgment dtd. 2/4/2009, wherein the petitioner was convicted under Sec. 366(A) IPC to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment, under Sec. 368 IPC to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and under Sec. 344 IPC to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment, which was modified in Crl. A. No. 12 of 2009 on the file of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge (Protection of Civil Rights), Thanjavur, wherein the conviction under Sec. 366(A) IPC was set aside and the petitioner was convicted under Sec. 363 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00 in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and under Sec. 368 IPC to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00 in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and the conviction and sentence was confirmed under Sec. 344 IPC, by judgment dtd. 5/9/2009.

(2.) The respondent police filed charge sheet against the accused herein for the offences under Ss. 366(A), 344 and 368 IPC along with one Devarajan for alleged offence under Sec. 368 IPC, alleging that while the victim girl, namely, Dowlath Nisha, aged about 8 years, was standing before Keela Alangam Municipal School, the accused persons kidnapped the victim girl and kept as a housemaid in the house of the second accused at Ambatur, Chennai and the second accused is relative to the first accused. Thereafter, on 1/4/2007 at about 08.00 A.M., the first accused has wrongfully confined her in her house and accordingly, charged for the above Sec. .

(3.) The second accused was absconding. Therefore, trial was conducted only against the first accused / revision petitioner herein. During trial, the trial Court framed charges against the accused herein under Ss. 366(A), 368, 344 IPC.