Crl.A.No.35 of 2018

IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.09.2023

CORAM:

The Honourable MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

Crl.A.No.35 of 2018

and

Crl.M.P.No.14934 of 2023

Raj Kannan

...Appellant/Accused

-Vs-

State of Tamil Nadu

Represented by Inspector of Police

Sooramangalam All Women Police Station,

Salem District,

Crime No.13 of 2014

...Respondent/Complainant

Prayer:- Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in

Spl.S.C.No.2 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track

Mahila Court, Salem and set aside the order of conviction dated 27.12.2017

and set the Appellant at liberty and pass such further order.

For Appellant

: Mr.T.Sai Krishnan

For Respondent

: Ms.G.V.Kasthuri

Additional Public Prosecutor

1/38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.35 of 2018

J U D G M E N T

The Appellant is the sole Accused in Spl.S.C.No.2 of 2015 dated

27.12.2017 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila

Court, Salem.

2. The Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 27.12.2017, has

convicted the Sole Appellant/Accused as follows : -

Conviction under section

Sentence Awarded

417 IPC

To undergo one year of rigorous

imprisonment and to pay a fine of

Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo

three months simple imprisonment.

406 IPC

To undergo three years of rigorous

imprisonment and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,00,000/- and in default, to undergo

six months simple imprisonment.

506 (1) IPC

To undergo two years of rigorous

imprisonment and to pay a fine of

Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo

three months simple imprisonment.

10 POCSO Act, 2012

To undergo five years of rigorous

imprisonment and to pay a fine of

Rs.25,000/- and in default, to undergo six

months simple imprisonment.

Accused is not found guilty of the offence under Sections 294(b) of

IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman

Act, 1998, and acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court

2/38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.35 of 2018

ordered the sentences to run concurrently and has also set off the period of

incarceration undergone by the Accused during investigation/trial under

Section 428 Cr.P.C..

3. The challenge in this Appeal is to the above said judgment of the

learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Salem.

4. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this

Criminal Appeal, are as follows:-

4.1. P.W-1 was already married and had two daughters. She was

working as Accountant at Jayanthi Industries, Coimbatore. The husband of

P.W-1, Velusamy, was working as driver. There had been dispute between

the husband and wife. The husband of P.W-1 had driven her out of the

matrimonial home along with her younger daughter, who is the victim, P.W-

2 in this case. After such incident, the elder daughter was staying with the

husband of P.W-1.

4.2. P.W-1 was working at Jayanthi Industries as Accountant and the

Accused was serving as Manager in the very same Company (Jayanthi

Industries, Coimbatore). In due course of time, on coming to know that

P.W-1 is living separately from her husband, the Accused is alleged to have

3/38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.35 of 2018

made advance to P.W-1. Considering her client sympathy, the Accused is

alleged to have offered to marry her and look after her minor daughter as his

own daughter. On that pretext, P.W-1 claims that the Accused married her

in Koniamman Temple in Town Hall, Coimbatore, in the presence of

younger daughter, P.W-2 (victim). After the marriage of P.W-1, the

Accused took out rental house at Indira Nagar, Kurangu Chavadi, Salem

and had been residing as husband and wife. In the course of such co-

habitation, the Accused, Raj Kannan, was working as a Manager in Jayanthi

Ind