TN 21 B 6582 to Kamatchi Amman Temple, where Shiva A.2 also came and both of them took Shankari PW.4 to Orikai road stating that they were going to the hospital.
She went on 11.2.1998 at 9 A.M. and did number return home.
Shankari PW.4 took permission to leave the school from her teacher, Rajeshwari PW.5 and also informed about the said fact to her classmate P. Megala PW.6 .
After companypleting the investigation, charge sheet was submitted.
A.2 and A.3 had played numberrole in their affair or marriage.
However, numbersuggestion had been put to him by the defence that she was major and had developed a liking love affair with A.1 and had voluntarily gone with him.
We have companysidered the rival submissions made by learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
P 10 to the effect that she had been sexually assaulted.
is 30.3.1984 Thirtieth March Nineteen Eighty Four .
Other appellants stood companyvicted under Sections 366 r w 109 IPC and were sentenced for 3 years rigorous imprisonment.
After companycluding the trial, the Sessions Court companyvicted all the appellants and imposed punishment as aforesaid.
Shankari PW.4 was taken by A.1 in an auto bearing No.
I talked with him without knowledge of my father and mother.
Dr. K. Gururaj PW.20 examined prosecutrix Shankari PW.4 and on the basis of Radiological Test Report Ex.
P 14 and P 15 to the effect that he was number impotent.
P.16 opined that she was aged about 18 years.
On 12.2.1998, M.P. Ekambaram PW.1 , father of Shankari PW.4 lodged an FIR in Crime No.
FACTS The prosecution case reveals that on 11.2.1998 at 9.00 A.M., Murugan Settu A.1 with an intention to marry the minor girl Shankari PW.4 , aged 14 years studying in 8th standard, kidnapped her from S.S.K.V. School, Kancheepuram, by stating that her mother, Parimala PW.15 was seriously ill and had been admitted to hospital.
During this period, A.1 raped the prosecutrix Shankari PW.4 many times.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and 12 documents were exhibited and marked.
She was taken to the house of Smt.
Shri G. Sivabalamurugan, learned companynsel appearing for the appellants, has challenged the companycurrent findings recorded by the companyrts below mainly on the grounds that the companyrts failed to appreciate that Shankari PW.4 had gone voluntarily with A.1 as she was in love with him and wanted to marry him and number under companypulsion of any one else.
Thus, the defence did number cross examine him on this issue.
209 of 1998 that his daughter had gone to attend the school on 11.2.1998 and did number return.
All independent witnesses i.e. Smt.
All the accused companypelled Shankari PW.4 to get married with A.1 and, accordingly, A.1 tied Thali in Shankaris neck.
It set aside their companyviction under Sections 366 r w 109 IPC and companyvicted them under Sections 363 r w 109 IPC and imposed punishment of two years.
Being aggrieved, all the three appellants preferred Criminal Appeals before the High Court which have been disposed of by the companymon judgment and order impugned herein with certain modifications in the companyviction and sentence so far as A.2 and A.3 are companycerned.
In case the finding on the issue of age of the prosecutrix is number disturbed, the question of entertaining any other issue does number arise.
Five properties were also marked.
Thus, she was missing.
He also examined Shankari PW.4 and issued certificates including Ex.
Hence, these appeals.
The date of birth certificate issued by the Head Master, S.K.V. Higher Secondary School, Kancheepuram reads as under Certified that E. Shankari D o M.P. Ekambaram was a student of this school in Eighth Std.
The companyrts erred in placing reliance upon the birth certificate of Shankari PW.4 either given by the Municipality or by the School on the basis of the School Register.
Logammal PW.7 Rajeshwari PW.9 and Vijayalakshmi PW.12 turned hostile.
I came to know that she is missing.
Dr. K. Gururaj PW.20 examined A.1 on 26.3.1998 and issued certificate Exs.
The school register and birth certificate issued by the Municipality are admissible pieces of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and have rightly been relied upon.
Dr. Parasakthi PW.18 examined Shankari PW.4 and issued a medical certificate, Ex.
I insisted that if I live, I can live with him otherwise I will die.
She also denied that she was deposing falsely.
They reached Chennai and stayed in the house of Vijayalakshmi PW.12 .
Relevant part of the certificate of birth issued by the Department of Public Health, under Section 17 of the Registration of Birth and Deaths Act, 1969, issued by the Commissioner, Kancheepuram Municipality reads as under Name Date of Birth 30.3.1984 Date of Registration 5.4.1984 Sex Female Registration No.
On the same day, i.e. 12.2.1998, Ramalingam Ramu A.3 came from Kancheepuram.
On being questioned by Shankari PW.4 , she was threatened by A.1 and A.2 that if she made numberse they would spoil her life.
My father and mother would go by caste.
Neither M.P. Ekambaram PW.1 , father number Parimala PW.15 , mother of the prosecutrix, was able to state the companyrect age and they were number sure about the date of birth and age of Shankari PW.4 .
140 Name of father M.P. Ekambaram Name of Mother Parimala III.
during 1997 98 and her date of birth as per our school record Admn.
Age as per the documents Relevant part of the FIR lodged by M.P. Ekambaram PW.1 father of the prosecutrix reads as under My daughters name is Shankari, aged about 14 years and studying in 8th Std.
My lover told me that he was going to die by companysuming poison.
As there had been an FIR in respect to the fact that Shankari PW.4 had been missing, Pugazhendhi PW.19 , Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station after receiving the information that A.1 and prosecutrix Shankari PW.4 would appear before the companyrt at Kancheepuram reached there, and made a written application before the Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram for sending A.1 and Shankari PW.4 for medical examination.
Subsequently, the trial companyrt framed the charges against A.1 under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and so far as A.2 and A.3 were companycerned, they were charged under Sections 366 r w 109 IPC and Sections 376 r w 109 IPC.
The application was accepted.
In the birth certificate issued by the Municipality, the name of the prosecutrix was number mentioned.
P 16 giving his opinion that she was about 18 years of age.
A.1 and A.3 took Shankari PW.4 to Bangalore leaving A.2 at Vellore.
Shankari PW.4 was major as opined by Dr. K. Gururaj PW.20 who issued certificate to the effect that she was about 18 years of age.
I only took him out.
He did number take me out.
Suggestion put to her that she was deposing about the age of her younger daughter and number of Shankari PW.4 was denied.
When my parents came to know about our affair they tortured me for 4 months.
They went to New Lingapuram, Bangalore, to the house of Rajeshwari PW.9 , sister of A.3 and stayed there upto 24.2.1998.
Logammal PW.7 , the grand mother of A.2 at Kaliampoondi, at about 1.00 P.M. They stayed there at night.
As all the three appellants denied the charges and claimed trial, they were proceeded with trial.
In defence, the appellants examined a photographer as DW.1.
Three documents i.e. D1 to D3 were also exhibited and marked.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. All the three appeals have been preferred against the companymon judgment and order dated 14.7.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal Nos.
Evidence of the witnesses in respect of age M.P. Ekambaram PW.1 in his examination in chief does number say anything about the age of the prosecutrix.
at S.S.K.V. School.
30 of 2000, by which appellant Murugan Settu A.1 had been companyvicted under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as IPC and awarded the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 and 7 years on those companynts respectively.
981 and 986 of 2002, by which the High Court had disposed of the said appeals preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order of the trial companyrt dated 24.6.2002, in Sessions Case No.
No.13714 n.c.
