Madras High Court

Manikandan @ Mani vs State By on 16 June, 2022

                                                            1/24

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 16.06.2022

                                                          CORAM :

                      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

                                                    Crl.A.No.220 of 2016


                    Manikandan @ Mani                                      .. Appellant/Accused

                                                            Vs.

                    State by:
                    Inspector of Police,
                    Tiruvarur Town Police Station,
                    Tiruvarur
                    Tiruvarur District.
                    (Cr.No.449/2012)                                   .. Respondent/Complainant



                                   Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the
                    Judgment and conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir
                    Neethimandram, (Fast Track Court) Thiruvarur in S.C.No.113 of 2014
                    dated 24.07.2015 convicting the Appellant/Accused for the offence under
                    Section 376 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of
                    seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo Rigorous
                    Imprisonment for a period of six months.

                                   For Appellant       : Mr.S.Sathia Chandran

                                   For Respondent      : Mr.S.Balaji (Crl.Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                         Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
                                                         2/24



                                                  JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment

and Conviction dated 24.07.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

Magalir Neethimandram, (Fast Track Court) Thiruvarur in S.C.No.113 of

2014 dated 24.07.2015 convicting the Appellant/Accused for the offence

under Section 376 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period

of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. The facts as revealed from the prosecution witnesses and

other materials are as under :

i) On 18.8.2012, at about 11.00 pm, a complaint, Ex.P1 came to

be filed by one Thiyagarajan (PW1) contending that himself and his wife

had gone to a temple on 18.8.2012 leaving their daughter Mahalakshmi

(the deceased) at home and when they were on their way back to home

after worshipping, one Mani son of Ekambaram (accused) had informed

them that their daughter had committed suicide by hanging by herself and

he had admitted her in a private hospital and accordingly, they rushed to

Thiruvarur Medical Centre where, they were informed by the Doctor that

their daughter died and thereupon, they have taken their daughter to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Government Hospital, Thiruvarur in an ambulance where, the Doctor, who

was on duty, had declared that their daughter was brought dead and made

arrangements for keeping the body in mortuary and thereby, PW1 had

sought to conduct enquiry and take action for the death of their daughter.

ii) The Special Special Sub Inspector of Thiruvarur Town

Police Station (PW11), on receipt of the complaint, registered the same in

Crime No.449 of 2012 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. in F.I.R. - Ex.P6. On

19.8.2012, PW1 had handed over the dead body to the relatives on

completion of the post mortem and submitted the case records to the

Inspector of Police, Vadapathimangalam, who was in charge of the

Station.

iii) The Inspector of Police, P.W.12, who took the case for

investigation, visited the scene of occurrence on 19.08.2012 at 6.00 am

and prepared observation mahazar (Ex.P2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P7).

Thereafter, he had examined the witnesses viz., Murugan (PW9) and

Manirao and recorded their statements. On the same day, P.W.12 had

conducted inquest in the presence of Panchayatars and Ex.P8 is the

inquest report. PW12 had sent the dead body for post mortem by deputing

PW11. Thereafter, he had examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and recorded their

statements.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

iv) PW1 being the father of the deceased deposed that he

alongwith his wife had visited to a temple on the date of occurrence viz.,

on 18.8.2012 and while returning from the temple, the accused had

informed them that their daughter had committed suicide and had admitted

her in a private hospital and by arranging an auto for them, he had asked

them to go to Thiruvarur Medical Centre and accordingly, they rushed to

the said hospital where, they were informed that their daughter died and

thereafter, they took her to the Government Hospital where also, she was

declared dead. He further says that thereafter, they returned to their home

and on the next day, he had lodged the complaint, Ex.P1.

v) PW2 is the brother of the deceased. He speaks in his

evidence that he is staying at Nagapattinam and is working in a Hotel. His

evidence is that on 18.8.2012, he went for his duty and on return, he came

to know about the death of his sister by 10.00 pm and thereupon, he went

to see her and since the dead body was kept in mortuary, he could see it

only on the next day. His further evidence is that a few days prior to the

occurrence, his mother and her sister-deceased had come to his house and

her sister took him away from their mother and informed that the accused

had been teasing her when she goes to college and giving trouble to marry

him for which, PW2 had pacified her by saying that he would resolve it by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

conveying the same to the parents of the accused. He also speaks in his

evidence that fifteen days prior to that, the accused himself had informed

him that he is in love with the deceased and requested him to arrange for

the marriage, to which he has not cared.

vi) PW3 is a hearsay witness, who deposes about the

information given by PW2 that the accused used to give trouble to the

deceased.

vii) PW4 is another hearsay witness. His evidence is that he

came to know through another neighbour Kamala (PW6) that the accused

used to give trouble to the deceased and due to that only, she had

committed suicide.

viii) PW5, Bhuvaneswari, another neighbour of the deceased

speaks in her evidence that on the date of occurrence viz., on 18.8.2012,

she was informed by the parents of the deceased that they were going to

temple and requested her to take care of the deceased. She says that when

she went to pick up her children, who were playing near the house of the

deceased, she noticed footwear near the door of the house of the deceased

and thereupon, she had looked into the house of the deceased as one of the

doors was opened and found that the accused was threatening her to marry

him as he loves her. On noticing the same, PW5 had reprimanded the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

accused and asked him to leave the house of the deceased. The further

evidence of PW5 is that the deceased had informed her that this is the way

in which the accused used to give trouble to her. PW5 further speaks in

her evidence that at around 7.00 pm on that day, the accused had knocked

the door of her house and informed her that the deceased had hanged

herself with saree and on his request for help, PW5 went to the house of

the deceased and on opening of the door of the house of the deceased,

PW5 found the deceased hanging and thereupon, she went to call Kamala

and when both of them had once again rushed to the spot, the accused had

descended the body and was holding in his hands and then, he had picked

up an auto in which, PW5 had sent the victim-Mahalakshmi with PW6-

Kamala, PW7-Sathya another neighbour to the hospital for treatment and

she had come to know that on the way to hospital, the victim died.

ix) PW6-Kamala, a neighbour of the deceased and also a relative

to the deceased. She speaks in her evidence that the deceased had

complained her about the teasing and compulsion made by the accused to

the deceased to marry him. She speaks in her evidence in correlation with

the evidence of PW5.

x) PW7, another neighbour of the deceased speaks in her

evidence about her assistance rendered in taking the deceased in auto- https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

rickshaw to the hospital. She speaks about the trouble given by the

accused to the deceased to marry him as the alleged cause for the suicide

committed by the deceased as a hearsay witness.

xi) PW8 is the auto driver, who speaks about his part in picking

up the deceased alongwith neighbours to the private hospital for treatment

and the declaration of the Doctor that the victim died.

xii) PW9 is a mere witness to the observation mahazar. He

speaks in his evidence that he does not know both deceased and the

accused.

xiii) After enquiring the prosecution witnesses and on coming to

an inference that the victim Mahalakshmi had committed suicide due to

the abetment of the appellant, P.W.12 had altered the case from Section

174 Cr.P.C. to Section 306 IPC and Ex.P9 is the alteration report.

Thereafter on the same day, at 16.00 hours, he had arrested the accused

and sent him to judicial custody. Thereafter, he had recovered M.O.'s 1

to M.O.3 under Form 95 and sent them to Chemical Analysis and

thereafter obtained Serological Report (Ex.P10). On completing the

preliminary enquiry, P.W.12 handed over the case file to P.W.13 –

Inspector of Police for further investigation.

xiv) P.W.13. once again examined the witnesses examined by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.W.12 and recorded their statements. Thereafter he examined P.W.10,

the Doctor, who conducted post mortem. Ex.P3 is the post mortem report

and Ex.P4 is the Viscera Report. He has also examined the Forensic

Expert and Scientific officer and obtained report from them.

xv) P.W.10 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the body of

the deceased. He deposed that on 19.08.2012 while he was on duty at the

request of the Investigating officer had conducted autopsy on the body of

the deceased at 12.45 P.M. and on external examination he found Rigor

mortis present on four limbs. 6X2x0.5 cm, linear oblique ligature mark

on the left side of neck between the angle of mandible and hyoid bone.

Hyoid bone was found intact. Multiple tiny abrasions present over the

skin of the perineal body near the anus. Vagina, freely admits two

fingers with altered blood. Fresh parauretheral tear of 4x3x1 cm.,

involving right lateral vaginal wall present. Laceration of 2x1x1 cm, in

left lateral Vaginal wall Laceration of 2x1x1 cm, in fourchette. On

internal examination, found that heart, lungs, livers, Spleen, kidney,

spinal card normal. Stomach contained rice with keerai about 250 ml.

Uterus found altered blood about 10 ml., endometrial cavity present.

Both tubes and overies normal. Skull, Brain/Membrane, normal and

intact. Viscera sent for chemical analysis. No poison or alcohol https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

declared. He had issued post mortem certificate- Ex.P3, Viscera Report-

Ex.P4 and Biological Report- Ex.P5 and had given the following opinion :

“The deceased would appear to have died of Hanging due to

carotid sheath compression – vagal Inhibition death.”

xvi) After examining several witnesses and obtaining various

reports, the Investigating Officer (P.W.13) completed the investigation

and filed final report and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.15 of

2014 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur for the offence

punishable under Section 306 IPC against appellant/accused, viz.,

Manikandan and the copies of the case materials and documents were

furnished to the accused.

xvii) On considering the case materials and documents, the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur has come to the conclusion that the

case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and committed the case

to the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur, who, in turn, made over the

case to the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila

Court), Tiruvarur in S.C.No.113 of 2014 for trial.

xviii) On appearance of the accused and considering the

materials and documents available on record and after hearing

submissions made by the prosecution and the accused, the Trial Court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

found prima facie materials against the accused for offence punishable

under Sections 306 and 376 IPC and accordingly framed charges against

the accused/Appellant under Section 306 IPC and 376 IPC. When

questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and sought to be tried.

xvix) To prove the case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses

as P.Ws.1 to 13, marked 10 exhibits as Exs.P1 to P10 and produced three

Material Objects as M.O.1 to M.O.3. When the accused was questioned

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances

appearing against them, he denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no

witness was examined and no exhibit was marked.

xx) After considering the evidence on record and hearing either

side, the Trial Court, by judgment dated 24.07.2015 in S.C.No.113 of

2014, acquitted the Appellant under Section 306 IPC, but convicted him

under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 7 years rigorous

imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for 6 months.

3. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the

appellant is before this Court.

4. Mr.Sathia Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the

Appellant, assailing the conviction and sentence made the following https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

submissions:-

i) The Trial Court has committed an error in convicting the

appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC when there is

absolutely no material or evidence even of the slightest nature against the

appellant.

ii) The Trial Court has grossly erred in framing additional

charge against the appellant for offence punishable under Section 376 of

IPC without there being any material evidence when the Appellant was

originally charge sheeted for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.

iii) The Trial Court, while rightly acquitting the Appellant from the

Charge under Section 306 IPC misled itself in proceeding with the case by

convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC

even when the materials found in the Charge Sheet do not support such a

charge.

iv) The Trial Court had failed to appreciate rudimentary

principle of criminal law that when there is no allegation of rape by any of

the witnesses examined by the prosecution, the mere mentioning by the

Medical Officer, PW10 with regard to certain injuries on the private part

of the deceased would, by itself, not establish that the deceased was

subjected to rape.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

v) The Trial Court has given undue importance to the evidence

of P.W.10, Doctor, which would, in no way, prove the charge of rape of

the deceased by the appellant.

vi) The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of

P.W.10 in proper perspective, where it has been clearly admitted in the

cross examination that there was no mention of presence of semen in the

Biological Report; the age of injury was also not mentioned and that the

injuries on the deceased do not categorically point out whether it was

sexual assault or not. The overall evidence of P.W.10 does not

categorically conclude that the deceased was subjected to sexual assault

prior to her death and hence convicting the appellant by the Trial Court for

the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is highly erroneous.

vii) When P.W.12 and 13 the Police Officers, who have

conducted the investigation, had categorically admitted that none of the

witnesses they have interrogated had alleged that the victim was subjected

to sexual assault, the Trial Court erred in finding the accused guilty for the

offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, which is nothing but perversity

of justice.

viii) Even as per the prosecution, it is the appellant, who had

made sincere attempts to save the life of the deceased by taking her to a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

nearby hospital, where she was declared as brought dead and hence the

conduct of the appellant would prove only his innocence.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal

Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that originally the

respondent had laid charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section

306 IPC and at the time of framing of charges, the Trial Court, on finding

that there was injuries on the private part of the victim, had altered the

charges by adding an additional charge for the offence punishable under

Section 376 IPC and the Trial Court, taking into consideration the

evidence of P.W.10 Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem and also

taking into consideration the injuries found on the private parts of the

deceased and the evidence of P.W.5, who had lastly seen the appellant in

the house of the victim, has found the appellant guilty for offence under

Section 376 IPC However, he would fairly submit that other than the

evidence to the effect that the appellant was compelling the victim to

marry him, P.W.5 had not spoken anything about commission of violence

by the appellant on the victim.

6. In reply, Mr.S.Sathia Chandran, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant submitted that the injuries found could be due to so many

other factors and though the Doctor, PW10 has stated that there were https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

injuries on the private part of the victim, she has not conclusively opined

that the deceased could have been subjected to rape and no evidence had

been let in to prove the age of the wound. He would further submit that

there is absolutely no other evidence to suggest that the victim was

subjected to rape and in such circumstances, the Trial Court has erred in

convicting the appellant/accused on surmises and conjectures.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the materials available on record.

8. The following issues need to be resolved in the Appeal:-

(i) Whether the Trial Court is right in altering the Charge for the

offence punishable under Section 376 IPC?

(ii) Whether the prosecution has proved this case beyond

reasonable doubt?

(iii) Whether the Trial Court is right in convicting the Appellant

on assumption without there being any specific and conclusive evidence

with regard to rape?

9. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim is aged about

18 years and the accused, who is her neighbour, was having one side love

with the deceased. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused

insisted the deceased to marry him and when the deceased refused his https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

proposal, on 18.08.2012 at about 6.30 pm, when P.W.1 and his wife had

gone to the temple and the deceased was alone at home, the accused had

entered into the house of the victim and threatened her that she should

marry him as he loves her or else he would not let her peacefully and

compelled her to tell her decision on the same day. The above incident

said to have been witnessed by Bhuvaneswari- P.W.5. She warned the

accused and sent him out and in continuation of the same, at 7.00 pm, the

victim, having been mentally depressed, had committed suicide by

hanging with a saree from the ceiling fan. Originally, final report was

filed by the respondents for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC

However, the Trial Court relying on Ex.P3 altered and added the charge

to Sections 376 IPC and 306 IPC and on completion of Trial, convicted

the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC

while acquitting him of the charges under Section 306 IPC.

10. On analysis of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it

is seen that except P.W.5, who is said to be the neighbour of the deceased

and alleged to have seen the appellant and the deceased together on the

date of occurrence, no independent witness has been examined on the side

of the prosecution to point out the guilt of the accused.

11. The evidence of PW5 is also to the effect that on the date of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

occurrence viz., on 18.8.2012, she was requested by the parents of the

deceased to take care of her daughter as they were going to a temple and

after some time, when she had entered into the house of the deceased, she

had seen the appellant inside the house compelling her to marry him and

on hearing this, P.W.5 had interfered and critisized the accused for his

behaviour towards the deceased in the absence of her parents and the

deceased had also appealed to her that the accused used to trouble her in

such a way. Other than that nothing has been spoken by PW5 about the

involvement of the appellant in attempting to commit rape or sexual

assault on the deceased.

12. Peculiarly, in the complaint lodged by P.W.1 there is not

even a single averment that the appellant had either harassed the deceased

or committed rape on her. He has not made any such allegation even

during the course of his examination as P.W.1. P.W.2, the brother of the

deceased has stated that he came to know through his sister the deceased

that the appellant had been harassing her, however, in his cross

examination, he had stated that he had not lodged any complaint about

such harassment to the police or he has not complained about the same

even to the parents of the appellant or to the any important persons in the

village.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

13. Therefore, virtually, no independent witness has been

examined by the prosecution to prove its case that the appellant had either

abetted the deceased to commit suicide punishable under Section 306 IPC

or committed rape or sexual assault on the deceased or attempted to

commit such an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. Whileso, the

Trial Court, surprisingly, framed additional charge against the appellant

for the offence punishable under Section 376 and while acquitting the

appellant from the charges under Section 306 IPC, had convicted him for

the offence under Section 376 IPC, relying on its own perception of

medical evidence.

14. The appreciation of evidence of PW10, the Doctor, who

conducted the post mortem, appears to be the basis for the conviction

rendered by the Trial Court. However, it is relevant to note that P.W.10,

during his cross examination, had admitted that no spermatoza was

detected as evidenced by the Biological Report, Ex.P5. He also admits

that he had not specified the age of the injuries found on the private parts

of the deceased and on the basis of such injuries, it could not be

conclusively opined that the deceased could have been raped.

15. Further P.W.12 and P.W.13 , the investigating officers who

had conducted the investigation, have also, in the cross examination, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

deposed that none of the witnesses had spoken anything about sexual

assault being committed on the deceased. Despite the above aspects, the

appellant had also not been subjected to potency test.

16. Such being the scenario, it seems that the Trial Court had

tried fishing for evidence against the appellant for the offence punishable

under Section 376 when, it is not at all the case of the prosecution. Merely

relying on the medical evidence to the effect that some injuries were found

on the private parts of the deceased, the age of which was also

inconclusive, the Trial Court, ignoring the other hypotheses tried to be

projected by the defence, had proceeded to frame additional charge for the

offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and convict the appellant

thereupon based on assumptions and presumptions.

17. Of course, the court has power to change or alter the charge.

Section 216 Cr.P.C. empowers the court in this regard. The relevant

provision is extracted hereunder for ready reference.

"216. Court may alter charge.

(1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any

time before judgment is pronounced.

(2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and

explained to the accused.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

(3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that

proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the

opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused in his

defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the

Court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or

addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the

altered or added charge had been the original charge.

(4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding

immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the

Court, to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as

aforesaid, the Court may either direct a new trial or

adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary.

(5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is

one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is

necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until

such sanction is obtained, unless sanction has been

already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as

those on which the altered or added charge is founded."

18. Though the court has got power to alter or frame additional https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

charge, it must be done on the materials available viz., complaint or FIR

or any material brought on record during the course of trial and it cannot

be done arbitrarily. In Anant Prakash Sinha alias Anant Sinha vs. State

of Haryana and another (2016) 6 SCC 105, it has been held by the Apex

Court as under:-

"18. From the aforesaid, it is graphic that the court

can change or alter the charge if there is defect or

something is left out. The test is, it must be founded on

the material available on record. It can be on the

basis of the complaint or the FIR or accompanying

documents or the material brought on record during

the course of trial. It can also be done at any time

before pronouncement of judgment. It is not necessary

to advert to each and every circumstance. Suffice it to

say, if the court has not framed a charge despite the

material on record, it has the jurisdiction to add a

charge. Similarly, it has the authority to alter the

charge. The principle that has to be kept in mind is

that the charge so framed by the Magistrate is in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis accord with the materials produced before him or if

subsequent evidence comes on record. It is not to be

understood that unless evidence has been let in,

charges already framed cannot be altered, for that is

not the purport of Section 216 CrPC."

19. It is an unfortunate case of the death of a lass. PW10, the

Doctor, who conducted autopsy, has conclusively given opinion that it is a

case of suicide by hanging. The prosecution has also filed the final report

for the offence under Section 306 IPC and that alone is the case of the de

facto complaint and the witnesses. The entire prosecution case itself is that

the appellant had compelled the deceased to marry him and an inference is

tried to be drawn that such a compulsion was the cause for the deceased to

commit suicide. The Trial Court, while rejecting the case of the

prosecution with regard to inference of abetment to commit suicide,

without there being even a single piece of evidence for offence under

Section 376 IPC, had proceeded to frame additional charge under Section

376 IPC and convicted the appellant thereunder. The additional charge

had been framed wrongly construing and placing reliance on Ex.P3, the

post mortem report, when the author of the document viz., PW10 himself

had admitted that he could not, with certainty, state about the reasons for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the injury found on the vagina and he could not conclusively opine it to be

a case of rape. From the evidence and materials available, this court is of

the opinion that the Trial Court has come to the conclusion not based on

any legally acceptable evidence but, based on mere assumptions and

presumptions, which are not well founded. The finding of the Trial Judge

is not corroborated by any reliable evidence, especially, when the medical

evidence does not support the case of rape.

20. It is trite law in criminal jurisprudence that burden is on the

prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. In Narender

Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 7 SCC 171, it has been held as

under:-

" .... in a case of rape, the onus is always on the prosecution

to prove, affirmatively, each ingredient of the offence it seeks

to establish and such onus never shifts. It is no part of the

duty of the defence to explain as to how and why in a rape

case, the victim and other witnesses have falsely implicated

the accused. The prosecution case has to stand on its own

legs and cannot take support from the weakness of the case of

defence. However great the suspicion against the accused

and however strong the moral belief and conviction of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

court, unless the offence of the accused is established beyond

reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material

on record, he cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an

initial presumption of innocence of the accused and the

prosecution has to bring home the offence against the

accused by reliable evidence. The accused is entitled to the

benefit of every reasonable doubt."

21. In the case on hand, as indicated above, the prosecution has

miserably failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable

doubt, however, the Trial Court, based on presumptions and assumptions,

without any legal evidence, convicted the accused which is liable to be set

aside.

22. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, this Criminal Appeal

stands allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the

Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court),

Tiruvarur, dated 24.07.2015 in S.C.No.113 of 2014 is set aside. Fine

amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. Bail bond

executed, if any, shall stand discharged.

16.06.2022 arr/ssk https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDRA, J.

arr/ssk Index:Yes/No.

Internet: Yes/No.

1.The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court) Tiruvarur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Tiruvarur Town Police Station, Tiruvarur, Tiruvarur District.