Madras High Court
The Madars High Court passed a judgement on a case in which a criminal appeal was filed under section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure of Code, 1973 to set aside the conviction of the accused passed by the learned session judge. Mahila Court at Salem in S.C No. 82 of 2016. The judgement of the case by the Madras High Court was given on 26 march 2021. The case was Balamurugan v/s The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Salem (Cr. A.No. 801 of 2019) and the case was presided by The Honourable Mr. Justice P. Velmurugan.
FACTS OF THE CASES
- The case was filed by the respondent police against the appellant and the 2 other for the offences which are punishable under section 376(1), 417, 506(2) of the IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibitation of Harassment of Women Act, 1998.
- The learned special judge framed the charges on against the 3 accused for the offences under section 376(1), 417, 506(2) of the IPC and section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibitation of Harassment of Women Act, 1998.
- The case was that the appellant fall in love with a women and promised to marry her. After promising of marriage he established a physical intimate relationship with that girl and the victim also got pregnant during that time. She gave birth to the male child who died after 2 months of the delivery due to some medical reasons. The defacto complainant asked the appellant to marry her but he refused to do so and also tried to marry another girl.
- After completing the trial and hearing the argument from both the sides , the trial court found the other 2 accused person not guilty and only found appellant guilty of the offences under section 417 of IPC and convicted for 1 year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/- and for section 4 of Tamil Nadu prohibitation of Harrasment of Women Act, 1998 he was convicted for 3 years rigrous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- .
- Challenging the same judgment of conviction appellant presented this appeal before the court.
- It was also found that the victim was already married at the time of the occurrence of the incident and having a 10 years old son which was already known by the appellant but he still established the relationship with her.
After the combined reading of the entire witness and evidences from the prosecution and the appellant shows that at the starting period of the relationship or intimacy the defacto complainant was already married and has a 10 years old son. Therefore the offences under 417 IPC was not proved. But it was proved by the witness and evidences that there was an intimacy between the appellant and defacto complainant. On the birth certificate of the dead male child the father name was of appellant so he was
convicted under section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harrasment of Women Act, 1998. However the sentences was modified from 3 years to 1 years and appellant was liable only to pay sum of Rs. 10,000/- as the compensation to the victim and rest of money which was given trial of session court should be refunded.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY NAMRATA SINGH