Eric Muline Nthuli vs State - 2020 Supreme(Mad) 2095

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Mad) 2095

R.SUBBIAH, R.PONGIAPPAN
Eric Muline Nthuli – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. Swamidass Manokaran.
For the Respondents: M. Prabhavathi, Additional Public Prosecutor.

JUDGMENT :

R. Subbiah, J.

1. The appellant herein is the sole accused in S.C. No.138 of 2017 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem. After conclusion of trial in the Sessions Case, by Judgment dated 02.04.2019, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant/accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 342, 506(i), 352, 376(1) of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as detailed below:-

Offence punishable under Section	Sentence imposed by the trial Court
Section 342 of IPC	Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months
Section 506(i) of IPC	Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of R. 1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months
Section 352 of IPC	Sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three mo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(Mad) 2095

R.SUBBIAH, R.PONGIAPPANEric Muline Nthuli – AppellantVersusState – Respondent

Cases Referred (6)

R.SUBBIAH, R.PONGIAPPAN
Eric Muline Nthuli – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent