Decided on February 11,1970



- (1.) IN this appeal accused 1 and 2 who are the appellants herein are at least entitled to the benefit of doubt on two grounds principally which will be set down by me presently. Briefly the facts are:
(2.) P. W. 1 employed as an Assistant Manager in Spens and Co. , General Paters road, was going along Buzullah Road, T. Nagar at about 5-40 p. m. He found accused 1 and 2 standing on the road in front of Thiru N. T. Rama Rao's bungalow. Accused 1 called him and pointing to accused 2 asked him if he liked her. Accused 2 was very attractively and glamorously dressed and made up. Accused 1 told p. W. 1 that if he paid him Rs. 25 he could have sexual intercourse with accused 2. P. W. 1 was taken aback, so he says. Accused 2 took his hand and spoke endearingly to him and asked him to pay her Rs. 25 and have sexual Intercourse with her. She also pointed out to a house nearby and told him that it was hers and pointed to the currency notes visible in his Terylene shirt pocket. He claims he was upset. He promised to come back in an hour and went away. According to his evidence, some passers by smiled. On his way, he saw a police van near the Vani mahal. P. W. 1 told P. W. 2 what had happened. P. W. 2 took Ex. P-l from him and then P. W. 1 took him to place. When accused 1 and 2 saw the police, they went inside. The police went in and accused 1 and 2 and P. W. 1 were taken to the police station.
(3.) P. W. 1 further says that the Assistant Commissioner P. W. 3 examined him at 630 p. m. He claims his office closed at 1-30 p. m. because of the Aruvatnimoovar festival. P. W. 1 makes it appear that this romantic adventure was result of his accidentally walking in the Bazululah Road on his return from Kodambakkam where he appears to have gone to see a friend. The entire incident occupied three minutes. P. W. 1 further says that there were two petty shops nearby. He also says that he had an idea of reporting to the police even before he saw the van. He saw the van in ten minutes of the incident. The van was in the petrol bunk near Vani mahal. P. W. 1 wrote out Ex. P-l. The suggestion that P. W. 1 was perjuring himself for the reason that he wanted to avoid being brought to book by the inspector as a pimp was refuted by him. He admits that the inspector did not question the petty shop owners. Therefore no petty shop owner was examined.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.