Criminal Appeal No. 770 of 2012 · High Court · 2012

B A I L S L I PThe Appellant/Accused namely P.Muthulingam, was directed tobe released on bail as per the order of this Court dated30.10.2012 and made in MP.No.1/12 in Crl.A.No.770 of 2012.The Appellants/Accused namely (1) Vijayakumar, (2) Cittibabuwere directed to be released on bail as per the order of thisCourt dated 18.10.2012 and made in MP.No.1/12 in Crl.A.No.645 of2012.The Appellants/Accused namely (1) S.Velusamy(2) S.Manikandan, were directed to be released on bail as per theorder of this Court dated 18.10.2012 and made in MP.No.1/12 inCrl.A.No.679 of 2012.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :02.11.2012CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. SUDANTHIRAMCrl.A.Nos.770, 645 and 679 of 2012P.Muthulingam.. Appellant/A2 in Crl.A.770/121.Vijayakumar2.Cittibabu ..Appellants/A3 & A5 in Crl.A.No.645/121.S.Velusamy2.S.Manikandan..Appellants/A1 & A4 in Crl.A.No.679/12VersusThe State byInspector of Police,T.Palur Police Station,(Crime No.132 of 2009) ..Respondent in all the criminal appealsPrayer:-Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.,against the Judgment dated 17.09.2012 in S.C.No.56 of 2012 on thefile of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,Ariyalur. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellants: Mr.C.D.JohnsonFor Respondent : Mr.P.Govindarajan Additional Public Prosecutor COMMON JUDGMENTThe appellant in all these three criminal appeals are theaccused in S.C.No.56 of 2012 on the file of the learned PrincipalDistrict and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur and they stand convicted foran offence under Section 366 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine ofRs.2,500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for sixmonths. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, theappellants have preferred the above said criminal appeals beforethis Court.2. These appeals are taken up for final hearing with theconsent of both the parties since the learned counsel for theappellants submitted that the appellants are not challenging theconviction imposed upon them, but they plead for the reduction ofthe sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them. The learnedcounsel has also filed an affidavit of accused 1 to 5 except thesecond accused. The learned counsel has made an endorsement onbehalf of the second accused that he too is confining his appealonly to the question of sentence.3.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that P.W.2,Revathy is the victim girl in this case. P.W.5 is the mother ofP.W.2. P.W.1 is the junior paternal uncle of P.W.5. P.W.3 is thecousin of P.W.2. P.W.4 is also related to P.W.2.(ii) One week prior to the occurrence, the fourth accusedrequested P.W.1 to give P.W.2 in marriage to him. The fourthaccused approached P.W.1 since the father of P.W.2 had alreadyexpired. Though, the fourth accused wanted to marry P.W.2, P.W.2had refused his request. As P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 refused the marriageof P.W.2 with the fourth accused, the fourth accused decided toabduct the victim girl, P.W.2. On 11.4.2009 at about 4.00 p.m,when P.Ws.2 and 3 were going to the field near Ayyanar Temple,accused 1 and 3 came there and they forcibly lifted P.W.2 and puther inside a Van which was standing there. Accused 2 and 4 weresitting inside the Van. The fifth accused drove the Van. Whilethe vehicle was running, P.W.2 was threatened by all the accusedand she was forced to marry the fourth accused. But P.W.2expressed her unwillingness to marry the fourth accused. Thoughthe accused insisted P.W.2 to give her consent to marry the fourthaccused, she had not budged. P.W.2 began to cry and also persuadedthe accused to take her to her mother's place. The driver of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Van took the vehicle to Thanipady Police Station. In themeantime, P.W.1 had gone to Thanipady Police Station and gave acomplaint, Ex.P.1. (iii) P.W.13, Inspector of Police on receiving complaintregistered a case on 12.4.2009 at about 9.00 a.m in Cr.No.13 of2012 for the offences under Section 147 and 366 A IPC and preparedFirst Information Report, Ex.P.7. P.W.13 on receiving theinformation that the victim girl was available at Thanipady busstop along with the accused, proceeded to that place and arrestedaccused 4 and 5, who are available in the Van. P.W.2, victim girl,who was in the Van was secured. He seized the vehicle. Thevictim girl was sent for medical examination. P.W.13 aftercompleting the investigation, laid a final report.4.In order to prove the case, the prosecution examinedP.Ws.1 to 14; marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. The accused were questionedunder Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminatingcircumstances and they denied their complicity.5. Though all the appellants do not challenge the conviction,this Court perused the records in order to confirm whether theconviction imposed on the accused is proper. The evidence ofP.W.2 is that she was forcibly taken by the accused and she waspushed into the Van which was driven by the fifth accused. Herevidence is also supported by the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. P.W.3is the person, who was accompanying the victim girl-P.W.2 at thetime of occurrence. P.W.4 was the person, who was there near by.6. The trial Court has rightly accepted the evidence of P.W.2which was corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3. The trial Courtonly disbelieved the evidence of P.W.13, Inspector of Police, whohad stated that he rescued the girl from the Thanipady bus stop,since according to P.W.2, she was brought by the accusedthemselves to Thanipady Police Station. In the said circumstances,the conviction imposed on the accused 1 to 5 by the trial Courtunder Section 366 IPC is confirmed.7. All the accused have prayed for leniency with regard tothe sentence of imprisonment imposed on them. Accused 1, 4 and 5had been in jail for 55 days. The second accused had been in jailfor 62 days. The third accused had been in jail for 31 days.8. This Court is now to decide whether leniency should beshown to all these accused. It appears from the evidence ofP.W.2, who was 19 years at the time of occurrence that the fourthaccused approached the elders of P.W.2 and he wanted to marry her.But the elder members of the family refused for arranging themarriage. It also appears further from her evidence in crossexamination that initially, she agreed to marry the fourthaccused. Though it is clear from the evidence that the accusedhave abducted the victim girl in order to pressurize her to accept https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for marrying the fourth accused, they have not achieved in theirtask. But they have not taken any co-ercive steps and she was notilltreated. When P.W.2 pleaded the fifth accused to take her tohome, ultimately, P.W.2 was handed over to Thanipady PoliceStation by the accused themselves. The trial Court alsodisbelieved the evidence of P.W.13, Inspector of Police that thevictim girl was secured when the Van stopped at Thanipady busstop. This fact is established by the evidence of P.W.2, victimgirl that she was handed over to the Thanipady police station bythe accused themselves. This fact brings sympathy on the accusedto the Court. Though all the accused have committed the offenceof abduction, at one stage they have realized and they havereturned the girl safely. 9. This Court feels that while sentencing the accused,reformative theory should be adopted wherever it is possible.Except the fifth accused, other accused are related to the fourthaccused. This Court finally believes that all the accused wouldhave reformed themselves.10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, thesentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused by the trial Courtis modified and reduced to a period of imprisonment alreadyundergone by them.Except the above modification, with regard tosentence of imprisonment, the criminal appeals are dismissed. kuaSd/-Asst. Registrar(Crl Side)//True Copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur2.The Inspector of Police,T.Palur Police Station,3.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.+ 5 ccs to Mr. C.D. Jhonson, Advocate SR No.67775SKD(CO)SR/20.11.2012.Crl.A.No.770, 645 and 679 of 2012