(Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Namakkal in C.A.No.103 of 2005, dated 31.03.2006, confirming the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Namakkal in S.C.No.53 of 2005, dated 21.10.2005.)

1. This revision arises against the judgment of the Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Namakkal, passed in C.A.No.103 of 2005, dated 31.03.2006.

2. The petitioners herein faced trial for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 366A of IPC in S.C.No.53 of 2005, dated 21.10.2005 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Namakkal.

3. The prosecution case was that PW2 Ambika, aged 17 years, resided with her parents at Nanjundapuram. The 1st accused belonged to the same place. The accused 1 to 5 are the friends of the 1st accused. The 5th accused was the driver of the Maruthi Van. At about 01.00 PM on 10.04.2003, PW2 was travelling to her friends house with her brother on a TVS-50 vehicle. With the intention of kidnapping PW2 and forcing her into marriage with the 1st accused, the accused waylaid PW2 and her brother, pushed down their TVS-50 vehicle and forced PW2 Ambika into the Maruthi Van which was kept running and took PW2 to the house of the sister of the 1st accused PW3 at Pidamaneri. The vehicle was driven by A5. At about 04.00 p.m. on such day, without her consent and against her wishes, the accused forced her into marriage with A1 at the house of PW3. The accused 2 to 5 were present. Then, they took PW2 to the house of PW14 at Krishnagiri bus stop. Hence, the accused were charged for offences under Section 363, 366 and 366A of IPC.

4. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and marked 19 exhibits and one material object. One witness was examined on behalf of the defence and no exhibits were marked.

5. The trial Court entered into finding of conviction and sentenced each accused to undergo RI for three years for each offence under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC. The accused were acquitted of the charges under Section 366-A of IPC. Against their conviction, the petitioners/accused preferred an appeal in C.A.No.103 of 2005, which came to be dismissed under Judgment of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Namakkal, dated 31.03.2006. There against this revision.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would strenuously attempt to support the findings of conviction given by the Courts below informing that the abduction of the minor girl by the accused cannot be denied as she herself has clearly spoken thereto. The discrepancies in the prosecution case are minor and the same would not stand in the way of conviction of the accused.

8. It is not necessary to discuss in detail the evidence in the case as this revision would have to be allowed on a sole ground which goes to the root of the matter. While the prosecution case is that PW1, the father of the victim girl, preferred a complaint at about 08.30 PM on 11.04.2003 and the same was registered in Crime No.324 of 2003 on the file of the respondent by PW15, the evidence of PW2, the victim girl is to the effect that she was kidnapped at 01.00 PM on 10.04.2003, A1 married her at 04.00 p.m. in his sisters house at Dharmapuri on 10.04.2003, then, they went to Krishnagiri and that on the very same day at about 11.00PM at the bus stop of Krishnagiri, PW15, the Inspector of Police secured her and apprehended the accused in the presence of PWs.3 and 5, sister and brother-in-law of the first accused. According to PW-2, her statement was recorded and her signature was obtained thereon. Though PW-2 has deposed that the statement tendered by her is Ex.P2, this Court finds that such statement bears the date 12.04.2003. However, even according to PW-2 she gave her statement and signed the same on the night of 10.04.2003. This would have been the original complaint, which has not been produced. There is no explanation from the prosecution in this regard. The prosecution case is only made worse by the admission of PW-1, father of the victim girl that Ex.P1 which originally bore the date 10.04.2003 has been altered to reflect the date 11.04.2003. The prosecution case suffers from an incurable defect in that the evidence of PW-2 points to suppression of the original complaint. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Seviand another v. State of Tamil Nadu and another (1981) SCC (Cri) 679 , [LQ/SC/1981/125] the entire prosecution case becomes suspect when the original FIR is suppressed.

9. Given the above, this revision case will succeed. The judgment of the Courts below are set aside and the accused shall stand acquitted from the charges. Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the accused. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled.