SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 1195

P.VELMURUGAN
Chandrasekar – Appellant
Versus
State represented by its All Women Police Station – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.E.Kannadasan
For the Respondent:Mr.R.Suryaprakash, Government Advocate

JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to call for the entire records in connection with the Spl.S.C.No.20 of 2017 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Magalir Nethi Mandram, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District and set aside the judgment dated 29.04.2019.

2. The respondent-Police registered a case against the appellant in Crime No.60 of 2015, for the offence under Section 366(A) and section 5(l) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. After the investigation, laid a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri. After completing the formalities, the learned Judge, Fast Track Court, Krishngiri, taken the charge sheet on file in Spl.S.C.No.20 of 2017. After framing the charges for the offences under sections 366, 342 IPC and section 5(l) of POCSO Act against the appellant/accused, during the trial, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to 13 and 17 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to P.17 but no material object was exhibited. After completing the evidence on the side of prosecution witnesses, incriminating circumstances

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top