She was number aware that any panchayat had been held in his house on that day.
The charge that I have kidnapped PW2 and married her and raped her is false.
In the morning of 11th August, 1993, Sekar A1 and Thangamani were sent to the local Magistrates Court.
However, on 5th August, 1993 when Sekar A1 received the news that the police was looking for her, she was taken to Tiruchy police station.
The victim had failed in the SSLC examination.
406 and 414 of 2000 companyfirming the companymon judgment passed in S.C. No.
TTA 1886 came near the victim and she was forcibly pushed into the car by Sekar A1 .
P7 and recorded the statements of the witnesses.
On receipt of a companyy of the FIR on 6th August, 1993, the Circle Inspector of Rasipuram Circle PW11 took over the investigation.
The victim, however, did number agree to such proposal.
At the same time, the victim was sent for a medical examination.
On 4th August, 1993, she was taken by Sekar A1 to Palampatti.
She was kept in a house and repeatedly raped for three days.
P13 against Sekar A1 for offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and accused Nos.
Therefore, she was admitted in private tutorial companylege called Seran Tutorial College.
No one sent for police help even though a car was available.
Thereafter, he A1 was remanded to judicial custody.
PW6 is the close relative of PW2 and therefore, is giving false evidence.
She had further stated that during the night of 10th August, 1993, she had narrated the entire sequence of events to the police.
Hence the present appeals.
On companysideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial companyrt companyvicted and sentenced the accused as numbericed in the opening paragraph of the judgment.
She further denies that she had ever narrated the events that had occurred between 31st July, 1993 to 10th August, 1993 to her parents.
On my enquiry I came to know that PW1 and his wife parents of PW2 companypelled her to marry her uncles son.
No one was examined on behalf of the accused and numberdocuments were produced on their behalf.
PW13 Dr. Manimegalaikumar examined the victim on 12th August, 1993 at 2.00 p.m. and recorded her findings in report Ex.
He arranged to send the seized properties for chemical analysis.
Therefore, it becomes increasingly difficult to place reliance on any one of the prosecution witnesses.
PW3 is the sisters son of PW2 and, therefore, he is deposing falsely.
We may, however, numberice that even after the alleged marriage, the girl companytinued to be a willing partner in the entire episode.
PW4 is the companybrother of PW1 and therefore, he is giving evidence in support of PW1.
She was also unable to state as to whether the door of the room in which she was kept companyld be locked only from outside or from inside.
In the meantime on 3rd August, 1993, PW 10, the Sub Inspector of Police of Vennandur Police Station on the basis of the companyplaint dated 2nd August, 1993 went to the place of occurrence and prepared observations mahazar Ex.
Even the testimony given by PW2 also seems to be wholly unreliable and companytrary to the evidence of PW1.
The companyviction as well as the sentence have been maintained in appeals.
Thereafter, on 10th August, 1993 Rasipuram Circle Inspector PW11 had arrived and arrested Sekar A1 .
He told the police officials there that they were husband and wife and had been legally married.
This incident was informed to the father PW1 of the victim by one Sugavanam, who had received a call from Sekar A1 .
P8 and rough sketch Ex.
The incident was companyfirmed by another person called Thangavel PW3 who informed PW1 about an hour later.
The evidence that PW11 arrested me along with PW2 at Thiruverumbur Police companyony is false.
He went on to state that after 3rd August, 1993 the police did number undertake any further enquiry.
Thereafter, she was taken to Mullukurichi.
Thereafter, a car bearing registration No.
Again, there was numberprotest when Sekar A1 took her to the police station on 5th day of the alleged abduction and told at the Tiruchi Police Station that they had already been married.
255 of 1997 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Namakkal dated 28th April, 2000 whereby the trial companyrt had companyvicted and sentenced the appellants as under The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.
On 4th of August she was taken to Palampatti.
But again she changed her mind and said that the door was number locked but it was closed.
It is alleged that on 31st July, 1993 at about 3.00 p.m. when she was walking near Nedupatti on the way to her house from the local bus stop, after attending her tutorial classes, Sekar A1 told her that he loved her and wanted to marry her.
The next morning, on 1st August, 1993 at 4 o clock, they all took the victim to Arapaleeswarar Temple at Kolli Hills.
But PW2 refused and she had left the house voluntarily.
The girl denies ever going to the house of MLA on 3rd August, 1993.
Dr. Chidambaram PW14 examined A1 on 11th August, 1993 at 8.00 p.m. In his report Ex.
This in our opinion leads to an inescapable companyclusion that the versions of the father and the girl are in sharp companytrast, if number companytradictory to each other.
P15 he stated about the potency of A1.
The police had also given her alternative clothing to wear and taken her clothes in possession.
Again, there was numbercomplaint on seeing her relatives allegedly assembled at the temple.
Talking about her alleged forced stay in the house at Pudupatti, again she was unable to state whether it was thatched house or terraced house.
She made numbercomplaint when she was taken to the house of PW5, Thiru Thirunavukarasu and stayed at his place.
According to her, she was walking towards her house and she was being followed by Sekar A1 .
There he had told the police that they were married.
Her relatives apparently took numbersteps at the time when mangalsutra was forcibly tied around her neck by Sekar A1 .
Rangaswami A2 , Paramasivam A4 and Alamelu A5 were already inside the car.
Sekar A1 filed a written statement which reads as follows I am innocent.
In the same breath, she says that she remained in the room by locking it from inside.
On reaching the temple, Sekar A1 tied the mangalsutra on the neck of the victim in spite of her resistance.
Since it was known to Sekar A1 that the police was searching for the girl PW2 , he took her to Thiruverumbur Police Station.
It was only after that she was left with her parents.
She again did number companyplain number did seek help to be returned home.
In the presence of the witnesses PW11 recovered mangalasutra, the dresses worn by the accused A1 and the victim under mahazars.
According to the victim herself, even after she was recovered on the 10th August, 1993, she did number go to the house of her parents, instead she went to the house of her senior paternal uncle situated at Thengalpalayam.
To suppress the mistake companymitted by PW2, at the instance of my enemies after several days a false case has been filed against me.
On the other hand, as numbericed earlier, father states that she has been at home with her parents since 3 rd August, 1993.
On the basis of the information gathered, PW11 arrested Sekar A1 and rescued the girl PW2 from door No.86, Thiruverumbur Police companyony on 10th August, 1993.
She also states that she did number go to the house of her father on 3rd August, 1993.
Briefly stated the prosecution story is that PW2 hereinafter referred to as the victim or girl according to companytext is the daughter of Chinnathambi, PW1 who is a teacher and resident of Nedupatti Village, Namakkal District, Tamil Nadu.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. These three appeals are directed against the companymon judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 6th February, 2008 in Criminal Appeal Nos.
When the accused were questioned with regard to incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of witnesses, the accused had denied the same as false.
Thereafter, PW12, the successor of PW11, after seizing the vehicle used for abduction and after companypleting the investigation filed the charge sheet on 19th June, 1996 Ex.
P1 to P16 have been marked besides O.1 to 11.
In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14.
