S.Sanjai v. Mohamed Safi
Crl.O.P.No.9030 of 2016 in Crl.A.SR.No.13360 of 2016 R.SUBBIAH, J The petitioner seeks leave of this Court to appeal as against the order of acquittal dated 25.1.2016 made in S.C.C.No.1 of 2013 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the trial Court convicted the respondents 1 to 3 / A.1 to A.3 for the offence under Sections 324 read with 34 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and Section 3 read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Ragging Rules, 1999, convicted the fourth respondent / A.4 for the offence under Sections 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and Section 3 read with 7 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Ragging Rules, 1999 and convicted the seventh respondent / A.7 for the offence under Section 7 read with 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Ragging Rules, 1999, acquitted the respondents 1 to 4 / A.1 to A.4 for the offence under Section 377 I.P.C. and further acquitted the respondents 5 and 6 / A.5 and A.6 for the offence under Section 4 read with 7 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition
of Ragging Rules, 1999, in spite of the evidence adduced by P.W.1 and the corroborative evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 in this regard. Further, the trial Court has, nowhere, specifically assigned any valid reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 with respect to the unnatural sexual offence. Though the respondents 1 and 2 / A.1 and A.2 have committed similar offence on 17.9.2008 and 18.9.2008, the respondents 5 to 7 / A.5 to A.7 have not taken any steps to prevent the same. But, the trial Court has not considered the said aspects with proper perspective. Hence, he prays for leave of this Court to appeal as against the order of acquittal.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 7 / A.5 to A.7 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the eighth respondent.
4. Though notice was served on the respondents 1 to 4 / A.1 to A.4 and their name appears in the cause list, they have not chosen to appear before this Court either in person or through counsel.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing
for the respondents 5 to 7 / A.5 to A.7 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the eighth respondent and perused the judgment of the trial Court and prima facie, I find certain arguable points in this matter. Thus, it is a fit case to grant leave. Hence, leave is granted, with regard to the acquittal of the respondents 1 to 4 / A.1 to A.4 for the offence under Section 377 I.P.C. and the acquittal of the respondents 5 and 6 / A.5 and A.6 for the offence under Section 4 read with 7 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Ragging Rules, 1999. However, the respondents 1 to 4 / A.1 to A.4 and the respondents 5 and 6 / A.5 and A.6 are at liberty to make all their submissions at the time of final hearing of the appeal. The Registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order.
15.07.2016 sbi
R.SUBBIAH, J sbi Crl.O.P.No.9030 of 2016 in Crl.A.SR.No.13360 of 2016 DATED: 15.7.2016