Arumugham v. Inspector of Police
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court confirmed appellant's conviction under Section 376 IPC despite lack of private part injuries but, applying special circumstance proviso to pre-2013 law, modified sentence to the period of 5.5 years already undergone and granted bail.
What did the court decide?
Conviction confirmed under Section 376 IPC; sentence reduced to period of incarceration already undergone; bail bonds cancelled; appellant discharged if at large.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Bail Slip
The Appellant/Accused (in S.C.No.191/96 dated 01/12/2004 on the file of the Asssistant Sessions Judge, Chidambaram)was encorged on bail and in by the order dated 10/08/2018 made in Crl.Mp.10663 of 2018 in Crl.A.614 of 2005 filed against the S.C.NO.191 of 1996 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chidambaram.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 27.10.2018
CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S.VIMALA CRL. A. NO. 614 OF 2005 Arumugham .. Appellant/Accused - Vs - State, rep. by Inspector of Police Sethiathope Police Station Chidambaram. .. Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Appeal filed u/s 374 (2) Cr.P.C. to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, in S.C. No.191/96 dated 1.12.2004.
For Appellant : Mr. R.Sankarasubbu, for Mr.Seeni Sultan
For Respondent : Ms. T.P.Savitha, GA (Crl. Side)
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein, who is the accused in S.C. No.191/96, was put on trial for the offences u/s 323, 354 and 376 IPC before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chidambaram and on being found guilty, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years u/s 376 IPC and further directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/=, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Of the fine amount of Rs.10,000/-, an amount of Rs.7,500/- was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant/P.W.1. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the absence of injuries on private parts precludes conviction under Section 376 IPC.
Whether the special circumstance of the accused serving time warrants sentence modification.
Whether the appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. should allow the conviction but modify the sentence.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Arumugham
- respondent
State, rep. by Inspector of Police Sethiathope Police Station Chidambaram
Coram
Dr. Justice S.Vimala
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court