N ANTHONY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/accused has filed this Criminal Appeal challenging the judgment, dated 4.10.2011 in S.C.No.326 of 2010 on the file of the Mahila Court cum Principal Sessions Court (Full Additional Charge), Cuddalore, in and by which, he was convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment and also convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ , in default, to undergo fifteen days' simple imprisonment. The trial Court ordered the sentences imposed on the appellant to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 14.11.2009 at about 7 p.m., the appellant called the deceased over Cell Phone and asked her to come to the cashew grove situated in Pachaiyankuppam. On the requisition made by the appellant, the deceased Indhumathi chose to meet the appellant and as such, she met him in the said place. The appellant told the deceased that he had been cheated by several women and told her not to cheat him. The deceased stated that she is going to marry one Rajkumar and on hearing this, the appellant got angry and molested and raped her and thereafter, committed her murder.

(3.) MR .C.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the appellant/accused contended that the entire prosecution case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. He further submitted that there are lot of contradictions in the prosecution case. He mainly focussed on the vital question, namely that the prosecution registered Ex.P 16 FIR on 15.11.2009 at about 9 a.m. in respect of the occurrence which took place on 14.11.2009 and the time shown in the FIR indicates that initially, it was noted as 17.30 hours to 21 hours, but the time has been altered to 19.30 hours to 21 hours; the FIR reached the Court only on 16.11.2009 at 4.30 p.m. with inordinate delay. These vital contradictions have not been noticed by the trial Court.