The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of sufficient evidence to establish charges under the relevant sections of the IPC, and the influence of witness testimonies and conduct on the court's decision.

1. These Criminal Appeals are filed against the judgment and conviction passed in S.C. No. 2 of 2007, dated 26.12.2007 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District, convicting the appellants for the offences under Sections 341, 366(A) r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Harassment of Women Act and sentenced them to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 IPC, 5 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 366(A) r/w 34 of IPC and 2 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Harassment of Women Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-

PW-2 is stated to be the victim, aged, 17+ years, at the relevant point of time and studying +2 and PW-3 is her sister. On 21.08.2006, at about 8.45 a.m. while PWs. 2 and 3 were proceeding to school, the first accused came in a car bearing Regn. No. TN-22H-0673 and forcibly took PW-2. Thereafter, the second and third accused alighted from the car after some time. PW-3 informed the same to her father PW-1. PW-1 lodged a complaint/Ex.P.1 before the Sankarankovil Police Station. PW-8 Head Constable, attached to Sankarankovil Police Station, on receipt of Ex.P.1, registered a case in Cr. No. 424/2006 under Sections 341 and 366(A) I.P.C. under Ex.P.12. PW-9 Inspector of Police attached to Sankarankovil Police Station took up the case for investigation and proceeded to the place of occurrence and investigated the witnesses and prepared a rough sketch (Ex.P.13) and observation mahazar. In continuation of the investigation, PW-4 uncle of the victim, accompanied PW-9 to identify the accused persons. While PW-9 on regular vehicle check up, found the car along with A-1 in the place called Krishnapuram Vilakku main road. Thereafter, A-1 was arrested and other accused were subsequently arrested. In the mean while, PW-7 doctor examined PW-2 and issued an Age Certificate-Ex.P.11. X-Ray report (M.O.2 series) stated that PW-2 was above 17 years and below 18 years. PW-9, after completing the investigation, filed a final report against all the accused under Sections 341, 366(A) r/w 34 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Harassment of Women Act.

3. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, PW-1 to PW-9 were examined and Exs.P1 to 13 were marked, besides M.O.1 and M.O.2. On the side of the appellants, no oral and documentary evidence was marked. On questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons denied charges. Based on the evidences and materials, the trial Court found the accused guilty as stated supra. Aggrieved over the same, the accused have come out with these Criminal Appeals.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

5. The main contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the alleged kidnap projected by the prosecution is a motivated one, at the instance of PW-4. The evidence of PW-1 and other witnesses shows that the family of the accused and victim are close relatives and in order to avoid such relation, prosecution has been laid against the accused.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would further contend that there are contradictions in the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3. PW-2 in her evidence has stated that on the date of occurrence, she and her sister were going to school together. But, PW-3 in her evidence has stated that since PW-2 was studying +2, she used to go to school 1 hour earlier. This itself indicates that she is not an eye witness to the occurrence and PW-2 has voluntarily accompanied the first accused. In fact, that has probablized the defence theory that there was love affair between the victi