C.Murali v. State by
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court dismissed criminal appeal against conviction for rape under Section 376(1) IPC. Court held that victim's oral evidence sufficed to convict despite acquittal on abduction charge and conflicting medical reports. Statutory minimum sentence was upheld.
What did the court decide?
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment confirmed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.09.2016
(Judgment reserved on 02.09.2016)
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
Crl.A.No.279 of 2015
C.Murali
State by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Avinashi, Tiruppur. (Crime No.31 / 2010)
.. Appellant/Accused Vs.
.. Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment, dated 18.08.2014 in S.C.No.19 of 2014 on the file of the Magalir Needhimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur.
For appellant : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu for Mr.J.Franklin For respondent : Mr.P.Govindarajan, Addl.P.P.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the conviction under Section 376(1) IPC despite the acquittal on a charge under Section 366-A IPC.
Whether conflicting medical evidence defeating the prosecution case regarding recent sexual intercourse warrants acquittal.
Whether any special circumstances exist to reduce the statutory minimum sentence of seven years for rape.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
C.Murali
- respondent
State
Coram
R.Subbiah
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court