Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 3721
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. DEVADASS, J.
Baskar @ Paradesi - Appellant
Versus
State by The Inspector of Police, Vadalur Police Station, Cuddalore District – Respondent
Crl.A.No. 1114 of 2007
Decided On : 23-11-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. T. Muruganantham
For the Respondent: Mr. R. Sekar, G.A.
The main legal point established is that in cases of kidnapping, the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, relying on credible evidence and witness testimonies.
Headnote:
Kidnapping - Criminal Law - Section 363, Section 366-A I.P.C. - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case against the accused for kidnapping a minor girl from an Ashram, the evidence presented, and the court's decision to convict the accused under Section 363 I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was tried for kidnapping a minor girl from an Ashram and was found guilty under Section 363 I.P.C. He was sentenced to 5 years R.I. The prosecution presented evidence of the accused taking the girl to another town, and the delay in lodging the complaint was raised as a defense.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of kidnapping the minor girl based on overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies and the accused's actions.
Issues: The issues raised included the delay in lodging the complaint, doubts about the investigation, and the credibility of witnesses. The defense argued that the accused was falsely implicated and that the evidence was not reliable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the school record and witness testimonies to establish the age of the girl and the accused's actions. The court found the prosecution's evidence to be credible and established the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's decision to convict the accused under Section 363 I.P.C. and affirmed the sentence.
The sole accused in the Sessions case in S.C. No. 127 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore is the appellant.
2. In the said Court, he was tried for an offence under Section 366-A I.P.C.
3. After trial, the trial Court found him guilty under Section 363 I.P.C. and sentenced him to 5 years R.I.
4. The case of the prosecution briefly runs as under:
(1) In Cuddalore District, in Vadalur Taluk, in Mettukuppam, Ramalinga Vallalar International Charitable Trust, runs an Ashram. In this, poor children are provided boarding and lodging. It is being administered by Sivaprakasa Swamigal. Its day-to-day affairs are being attended to by P.W.1.
(2) P.W.2, a 15 years old girl along with her two sisters stays in the said Ashram. They have no parents. They are studying in the nearby school.
(3) The said Trust provides free meals to the needy. The accused used to take free meals. On 9.1.2006, morning, Sivaprakasa Swamigal and P.W.1 had gone to Chidambaram. At about 12 noon, the accused told P.W.2 that Sivaprakasa Swamigal asked him to bring her to Chidambaram. So, P.W.2 went along with the accused. P.W.3 a servant in the Ashram seen this. He told this to P.W.4, sister of Sivaprakasa Swamigal. In the evening, missing of P.W.2 from the Ashram came to light. P.W.4 informed this to P.W.1 and Sivaprakasa Swamigal, who were then in Chidambaram.
(4) On the same day, at about 6.30 p.m., near Senthanirpuram in Trichirapalli, P.W.11 Head Constable attached to Ponmalai Police station seen the accused dressed himself a devotee of Vallalar along with P.W.2, who was in her school uniform. On enquiry, P.W.11 came to know that the accused had brought her from the Ashram in Mettukuppam. He took them to his Police station. This was informed to Vadalur Police.
(5) On the same day, around 9 p.m., Sivaprakasa Swamigal and P.W.1 returned to the Ashram. Now, it came to light that the accused had kidnapped P.W.2. On the next day, namely 10.1.2006, at about 4 a.m., at the Vadalur police station, P.W.1 gave Ex.P1 complaint to P.W.10 Head Constable. He registered this case under Section 363 I.P.C. (Ex.P9 F.I.R.).
(6) P.W.12 Inspector, Vadalur Police station took up his investigation. At about 10 a.m., P.W.6, a Woman Constable attached to All Women Police station, Neiyvelli and a police party brought the accused and P.W.2 to Vadalur police station from Trichy.
(7) P.W.12 arrested the accused. Examined P.W.2 and recorded her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the presence of P.W.5 and another, he seized M.O.3 white colour doti from the accused under Ex.P13 Mahazar and seized M.Os.1 and 2 green colour pant, white colour tops from P.W.2 under Ex.P12 Mahazar. He altered the section of law to Section 366 I.P.C. (Ex.P14 alteration report).
(8) On 11.1.2006, on examination, P.W.8, an Assistant Civil Surgeon at Govt. Headquarters Hospital, Cuddalore found no evidence of sexual violence on P.W.2. P.W.14 Radiologist, on examination, found P.W.2 was between 17 and 18 years old. (See M.Os.4 and 5 x-rays and Ex.P20 report).
(9) P.W.12 examined material witnesses and recorded their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After him, P.W.13 continued the investigation. He obtained age certificate for P.W.2. Concluding his investigation, he filed the final report before the committal Court for an offence under Section 366-A I.P.C.
5. The learned Magistrate took cognizance on the final report. Furnished copies of documents to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Committed the case to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. The learned Judge made over the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore.
6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing both sides and on consideration of the case-records framed a charge under Section 366-A I.P.C. Explained the charge to the accused. He pleaded not guilty.
7. In the circumstances, to substantiate the charge, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14, marked Exs.P1 to P
