Madras High Court
Vijayakuamr vs State Represented By on 21 April, 2025
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.04.2025
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
Vijayakuamr ... Appellant in Crl.A.No.56/2023 &
Respondent in Crl.A.No.368/2025
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police
Wellington Police Station
Wellington,
The Nilgiris District. ... Respondent in Crl.A.No.56/2023 &
Appellant in Crl.A.No.368/2025
Prayer in Crl.A.No.56 of 2023: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2)
of Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment made in SCC No.33 of 2021 on the file of
the Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhimandram (FTMC), Udhagamandalam at
Nilgiris dated 30.11.2022.
Prayer in Crl.A.No.368 of 2025: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(1)
1/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
of Cr.P.C./419 of B.N.S.S. to set aside the order of acquittal rendered in
judgment dated 30.11.2022 made in Special Calender Case No.33 of 2021 on
the file of the Sessions Judge Magalilr Needhimandram, (FTMC),
Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris.
In both Crl.Appeals:
For Appellant in Crl.A.No.56/2023 &
Respondent in Crl.A.No.368/2025 : Mr.T.Shanmugam
For Respondent in Crl.A.No.56/2023 &
Appellant in Crl.A.No.368/2025 : Mrs.G.V.Kasthuri
Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON JUDGMENT
Crl.A.No.56 of 2023 has been filed by the accused to set aside the
judgment of conviction and sentence made in Special Calender Case No.33 of
2021 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhimandram (FTMC),
Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris dated 30.11.2022 for the offence under Sections
363 and 343 of IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
2. Crl.A.No.368 of 2025 has been filed by the State to set aside the order
of acquittal rendered in Special Calender Case No.33 of 2021 dated 30.11.2022
by the Sessions Judge Magalilr Needhimandram, (FTMC), Udhagamandalam
at Nilgiris.
3. The case of the prosecution is that based on the complaint preferred
by the father of the victim girl, originally the case in Crime No.419 of 2020
was registered by the respondent police "for girl missing. Subsequently, the
victim girl was secured and based on her statement, the respondent police
altered the offence into Sections 363 IPC and 5(l) read with 6 of POCSO ACt,
2012 @ 363 and 343 IPC @ 5(l) read with 6 of PCSO Act, 2012 and after
completion of investigation, they laid charge sheet and the same was taken on
file in Special Calender Case No.33 of 2021 on the file of the Sessions Judge
Magalilr Needhimandram, (FTMC), Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris. The trial
Court after completion of trial, though convicted the accused for the IPC
offences viz. Sections 363 and 343 IPC, acquitted the accused from the offence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
under Section 5(l) read with 6 of POCSO Act.
4. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
trial Court for the offence under the POCSO Act, the accused has filed the
appeal in Crl.A.No.56 of 2023 and challenging the judgment of acquittal of the
accused from IPC offence, the State has preferred the appeal in Crl.A.No.368
of 2025.
5. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the victim and the
accused were neighbours and they fell in love with each other and after coming
to know about the same, there was a quarrel between the parents of the victim
and the accused and thereafter, the accused shifted his house to other place.
Thereafter, the parents of the victim, made arrangements for the marriage of the
victim with some other person and therefore, the victim herself left her home
and approached the accused and with no other option, the accused took the
victim to the relatives house and stayed there for some time and after coming to
know that the parents of the victim have given complaint and the local police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
are in search of the victim and the accused, the accused brought her back to her
native. Subsequently, the police identified the victim and secured her and took
her to the police station and even in the police station, she had not stated
anything about the physical relationship. Thereafter, the victim was produced
before the Magistrate for recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and
even before the Magistrate, she had not stated anything about physical
relationship. Even the doctor nowhere stated that the victim had stated that
there was repeated penetrative sexual relationship between the accused and the
victim and that the Doctor has stated that it cannot be stated that the victim is
not a virgin. Therefore, the charge levelled against the accused for the offence
under Section 5(l) read with 6 of POCSO Act is un-sustainable. Further, there
is no materials to show that there was a penetrative sexual assault on the victim
girl. Even in the statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164
Cr.P.C., the victim had not stated that they had physical relationship during
their stay. Even when the victim was examined as P.W.1, she had not stated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
anything about the penetrative sexual assault and not supported the case of the
prosecution and therefore, the victim was declared as hostile witness. Only in
order to fix the accused under POCSO offence, the prosecution filed a false
case against the accused. Since the prosecution had not substantiated the
charges levelled against the accused by oral or documentary evidence, the trial
Court rightly appreciated the evidence and acquitted the accused from the
charge under the POCSO Act. Hence, the appeal filed by the State in
Crl.A.No.368 of 2025 is liable to be dismissed.
6. Insofar as the charges for the offence under Sections 363 and 343 IPC
are concerned, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that it is not the
case of the prosecution or the case of the victim that the accused kidnapped or
abducted the victim. The victim herself clearly stated that due to fear that her
parents would get her into marriage with some other person, she had
voluntarily left her home and approached the accused and therefore, the offence
under Sections 363 and 343 IPC is not made out. However, the trial Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
failed to consider the statement of the victim and convicted the accused for the
offence under Section 363 and 343 of IPC. Therefore, the appeal filed by the
accused in Crl.No.59 of 2023 is liable to be allowed and the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the Special Court for the offence under
Sections 363 and 343 of IPC has to be set aside.
7. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the accused
placed reliance on the following judgements:
1. S.Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras reported
in AIR 1965 SCC 942
2. Mahesh Mukund Patel Vs. State of U.P.
reported in Criminal Appeal No.001005 of
2002dated 28.02.2025.
3. Parvat Sing Vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in AIRONLINE 2020 SC 271.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State
submitted that originally the parents of the victim gave a complaint for girl
missing and during investigation, the victim girl was secured and she stated
that she was in love with the accused who was her neighbour and since her
parents were making arrangements to give her into marriage with some other
person, she approached the accused and the accused took her to Mysore
wherein they stayed in the relatives house of the accused and during their stay,
they had physical relationship. In the Police Station, the victim refused to go
with her parents and therefore, she was sent to home. Subsequently, based on
the statement of the victim girl, the offence was altered to Sections 363 IPC
and 5(l) read with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 @ 363 and 343 IPC and 5(l) read
with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. The victim was subjected to medical examination
and also produced before the Magistrate for recording evidence under Section
164 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, the respondent police
laid charge sheet for the offence under Sections 363 and 343 IPC and 5(l) read
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and the same was taken on file in Special Calender
Case No.33 of 2021 on the file of the Sessions Judge Magalilr
Needhimandram, (FTMC), Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris.
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the date of
birth of the victim was 22.10.2023 and at the time of occurrence, the victim girl
was aged 17 years and had not completed the age of 18 years and therefore, she
was a child at the time of occurrence under the definition of POCSO Act. In
support thereof, the bonafide certificate issued by the College of Nursing where
the victim girl was studying was marked as Ex.P.13. There was no challenge on
the side of the accused on the age of the victim. Since the victim was a child at
the time of occurrence under the definition of POCSO Act, there is no question
of elopement or consent. Since the victim who was a child, was taken away
from the custody of her parents without their knowledge by the accused and
kept her in his custody for few days, the offence under Sections 363 and 343 of
IPC would attract. Therefore, the contention of the accused that the victim only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
voluntarily left her parental home and stayed with the accused is not
acceptable. The trial Court also rightly convicted the accused for the offence
under Sections 363 and 343 IPC. Therefore, the appeal filed by the accused in
Crl.A.No.56 of 2023 is liable to be dismissed.
10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that as
far as the charge levelled against the accused for the offence under Section 5(l)
read with 6 of POCSO Act is concerned, pending trial, the victim married to
the accused and therefore, when the victim was examined as P.W.1 during trial,
she turned hostile and the family members of the victim viz.P.W.2 to P.W.4 also
turned hostile and therefore, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were declared as hostile witnesses.
But, the victim girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has
clearly stated that she left her home and the accused took her to Mysore
wherein, they stayed in house of the relatives of the accused during their stay,
they were together. When the victim was produced before the doctor, the doctor
after examining the victim found that the hymen of the victim is not intact. But,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
the trial Court to failed to consider the medical evidence and the statement
recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also the scope and
object of POCSO Act and acquitted the accused, which warrants interference
and the appeal filed by the State in Crl.A.No.368 of 2025 has to be allowed.
11. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
12. A reading of the FIR shows that the parents of the victim gave a
complaint to the police stating that their daughter was missing from their home.
Hence, originally the case was registered for girl missing. Subsequently, after
securing the victim and after recording her statement, the respondent police
altered the offence into Section 363 IPC and 5(l) read with 6 of POCSO Act,
2012 @ 363 and 343 IPC and 5(l) read with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and after
completion of investigation, laid charge sheet for the offence under Section 363
and 343 IPC and 5(l) read with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and the same was taken
on file in Special Calender Case No.33 of 2021 on the file of the Sessions
Judge Magalilr Needhimandram, (FTMC), Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
13. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, on the side of the
prosecution, 9 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and 18 documents
were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P18, however, no oral and documentary evidence
was produced on the side of the defence.
14. Before the trial Court, the victim was examined as P.W.1. A reading
of the evidence of the victim shows that she had not supported the case of the
prosecution as far as the charge under the POCSO Act is concerned and
therefore, she was declared as hostile witness. When the prosecution put a
suggestion to the victim during cross examination regarding penetrative sexual
assault by the accused, she denied the same. But during cross examination on
the side of the accused, when a suggestion was put to the victim that during
college days she involved in sports and used to ride cycle and two wheeler, she
admitted the same.
15. It is an admitted fact from the case of the prosecution, the case of the
defence and cross examination of the victim and also the grounds taken by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
accused in the appeal that the accused knows the victim very well and they
both were neighbours once upon a time and that the victim and the accused
were in love with each other. When the parents of the victim came to know
about the same, there was a quarrel between the parents of the victim and the
accused. Therefore, the accused shifted his house to some other place.
16. From the evidence of the victim it is seen that since her parents
arranged marriage with some other person, the victim left her home and
approached the accused. The accused who had been a neighbour and lover of
the victim girl, he knows very well that the victim did not attain majority at the
relevant point of time. Even assuming that the victim only voluntarily left her
home and approached the accused due to fear that her parents would give her
into marriage with some other person, the accused ought to have informed the
same either to the police or any other competent authority or Social Welfare
Officer. Now a days, the youngsters very well aware that when two adult
persons who were in love with each other and if their parents arranges marriage
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
against their wish, they can approach either police or they can seek help from
the concerned authorities through social media. If at all the intention of the
accused was to safe guard the victim from the alleged marriage, as soon as the
victim approached him, the accused ought to have intimated the same to the
competent authority to stop the marriage whereas, the accused without
intimating to any of the competent authority, took the victim to many places
and finally to his relatives house in Mysore wherein they have together for few
days. Once the victim was a child at the time of occurrence, there is no
question of elopement and consent. Since the victim had not completed the age
of 18 years at the time of occurrence, she was a child under the definition of
POCSO Act, the offence under Sections 363 and 343 of IPC is made out.
Therefore, the trial Court rightly convicted the accused for the offence under
Section 363 and 343 of IPC. The grounds taken by the accused is not
sustainable and there is no merits in the appeal filed by the accused and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
17. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the accused in Crl.A.No.56 of
2023 is dismissed.
18. As far as the appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the
accused from the charge under the POCSO Act is concerned, after securing the
victim, her statement was recorded by woman police, in which, the victim has
clearly stated that she left her parental home and approached the accused and
that the accused took her to Mysore wherein they stayed in the relative's house
and during their stay, they had sexual intercourse. Subsequently, the victim girl
was produced before the Magistrate and the statement of the victim was
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and during that time also, the victim has
clearly stated that they went to Mysore and stayed in the unlce's house of the
accused for two days and thereafter, they stayed in his Aunt's house for one
week and at that time "they were together", which corroborated the medical
evidence. Though in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has
not used the exact word that they had physical relationship, however in a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
diplomatic manner the victim has used the language that "they were together"
during their stay in Mysore. Since the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was
recorded by Male Magistrate and the victim being a village girl, due to shyness
or embarrassment she might have used the diplomatic word that they were
together instead of uttering the words that they had physical relationship or
sexual intercourse. Even the doctor, who examined the victim has also clearly
stated that the hymen is not intact. Further, in the earlier statement recorded by
the woman police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that the
accused had sexual intercourse with her. Though the statement recorded by the
police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not an admissible in evidence, the same can
be used for contradictions.
19. Further, as stated above, when the victim was examined as P.W.1, she
turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution as far as the charge
under the POCSO Act is concerned and hence she was declared as hostile
witness. It is seen that when the prosecution put a suggestion to the victim
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
during cross examination regarding penetrative sexual assault by the accused,
she denied the same, and during cross examination on the side of the accused,
when a suggestion was put to the victim that during college days she involved
in sports and used to ride cycle and two wheeler, she admitted the same.
Therefore it is clear, to safeguard the accused and in order to project the
opinion of the doctor that that the hymen was not intact, in a different way,
defence tried to say that it was not due to intercourse with the accused.
However, no evidence was produced and no independent witness was
examined on the side of the accused. It is seen that pending trial, the accused
married the victim and in order to safeguard the accused, the victim/P.W.1
turned hostile before the trial Court. Even the family members of victim viz.,
P.W.2 to P.W.4 have turned hostile.
20. The trial Court failed to consider the language used by the victim that
during their stay "they were together" in the statement recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C. by a Male Magistrate and subsequently during preparation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
judgment, the trial Court recalled victim/P.W.1 who was already declared
hostile and to clarify the said statement and taking advantage of the same, the
victim stated that she meant that they were staying in the house" and thereby,
the trial Judge come to the conclusion that the oral evidence of the victim not
supported the charge of sexual assault and thereby, acquitted the accused from
the offence under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
21. However, a perusal of the material evidence, it is clear that the
accused removed the victim from the lawful custody of her parental home and
they both stayed in his relatives' house and during their stay, they had physical
relationship and the medical evidence also confirmed the same. Therefore, the
act committed by the accused, falls under Section 3 punishable under Section
4(1) of POCSO Act.
22. In the cases of this nature, the Court cannot take evidence of the
witness in an absolute manner here and there. A reading of the materials right
from the top to end, it is seen that it is not as if the accused and the victim are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
strangers. Even the defence itself stated that the accused and the victim fell in
love with each other and they went to Mysore and stayed together in their
relative's house.
23. This Court, being an appellate Court, as a final Court of fact finding,
while re-appreciating the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and
considering the scope and object of POCSO Act and also the statement of the
victim, finds that the accused has committed the offence under Section 3
punishable under Section 4(1) of POCSO Act.
24. Further, the offence under the POCSO Act is not against individual
and it is against the Society. Hence, the subsequent marriage between the
accused and the victim, will not take away the offence committed by the
accused when the victim girl was a child. If the defence of subsequent marriage
or the elopement is accepted, then the purpose of enactment of the POCSO Act
would get defeated. In case this proposition is accepted, in my opinion, it will
lead to disastrous consequences.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
25. The decision referred by the learned counsel for the accused is not
applicable to the present case on hand since those are not applicable to the
POCSO Act cases. Prior to POCSO came into force, the accused taking
advantage of the innocence of the victim girl committed the offence and took a
defence of consent or elopement. But POCSO Act is very clear and there is no
question of consent or elopement before the age of 18 years.
26. Therefore, the appeal filed by the State in Crl.A.No.368 of 2025 is
allowed and the accused is convicted for the offence under Section 3
punishable under Section 4(1) of POCSO Act.
27. Since the accused was acquitted by the Special Court from the
offence under Section 5(l) punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act and now
this Court reverses the judgement of the trial Court and convicting the accused
for the offence under Section 3 of POCSO Act which is punishable under
Section 4(1) of the POCSO Act, the accused has to be heard for question of
sentence before awarding punishment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
28. Hence, the accused is directed to appear before this Court on
28.04.2025 “for question of sentence”.
21.04.2025
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
ksa-2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
To
1. The Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhimandram (FTMC),
Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris
2. The Inspector of Police
Wellington Police Station
Wellington, The Nilgiris District.
3. The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Copy to
The Section Officer
Criminal Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
P.VELMURUGAN. J.
Ksa-2
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
21.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
P.VELMURUGAN,J.
This Court while disposing the appeals in Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368
of 2025 by its order dated 21.04.2025, convicted the accused and directed him
to appear before this Court on 28.04.2025 for hearing on the question of
sentence to be imposed on him.
2. But when the matter came up before this Court on 28.04.2025, the
accused was not produced by the police due to administrative reasons and
hence, at the request of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the matter
was ordered to be listed today (29.04.2025).
3. Today (29.04.2025), the accused was produced before this Court and
he was explained about the conviction made by this Court for the offence under
Section 3 punishable under Section 4(1) of the POCSO Act. When the accused
was questioned regarding the sentence to be imposed on him, he stated that he
is the only person, who is the taking care of his wife/victim and his mother and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
now the victim is in the family way. He further stated that there is no elder to
take care of them. Therefore, if he is put in jail, the victim, who is now
pregnant, would suffer a lot. At last, he stated that without knowing the
consequences and rigorous nature of the offence under the POCSO Act, he
committed the offence and he requested this Court to release him.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that now the victim is
pregnant and the accused is the only person, who takes care of the victim and
therefore, the sentence may be considered on the ground of sympathy.
5. Heard the accused and the learned counsel for the appellant/accused.
6. Admittedly, on the date of occurrence, the victim was a child under
the definition of POCSO Act. The accused himself admitted that the victim
herself approached him on fear of marriage arranged by her parents and
therefore, he took her to various places and thereafter to Mysore in Karnataka
wherein, they stayed in their relatives house and at that time, both the accused
and the victim were together. As stated above, since the victim, who was a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
child at the time of occurrence, was subjected to penetrative sexual assault and
the same falls under Section 3 punishable under Section 4(1) of POCSO Act.
7. Therefore, this Court finds that the accused has committed the
offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4(1) of the POCSO Act.
Considering the mitigating circumstances, since the minimum sentence for the
offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4(1) of the POCSO Act is 10
years, this Court has no authority to give punishment less than the minimum
sentence provided under the Special Act.
8. Under these circumstances, the accused is sentenced to undergo the
minimum sentence of 10 years simple imprisonment and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine
amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.
Since the accused himself married to the victim, this Court is not inclined to
order any compensation to the victim
9. The accused was already convicted by the trial Court and sentenced
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of
Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo further period of simple imprisonment for
three months for the offence under Section 363 of IPC and he was directed to
pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of three months for the offence under Section 343 IPC. The sentence
now awarded by this Court and the trial Court for the above said offence shall
run concurrently.
29.04.2025
(1/2)
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
ksa-2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
To
1. The Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhimandram (FTMC),
Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris
2. The Inspector of Police.
Wellington Police Station.
Wellington, The Nilgiris District.
3. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Copy to:
The Section Officer
Criminal Section, High Court of Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
P.VELMURUGAN. J.
Ksa-2
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
29.04.2025
(1/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
Crl.A.Nos.56 of 2023 and 368 of 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 04:51:10 pm )
