In an appeal challenging the conviction and sentence for rape and kidnapping, the High Court held that the prosecution evidence was improbable due to lack of corroboration and medical findings negating injuries, thus acquitting the appellant.
Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted; fine refunded if paid; bail bond cancelled.
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.
1
BAIL SLIP
The appellant/Sole Accused namely Venkatesan S/o.Chinnathambi was released on bail as per the order of this Court dated 23.09.2008 made in MP(MD)No.1 of 2008 in Crl.Appeal(MD)No.429 of 2008.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE: 25.10.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL (MD).No.429 of 2008
Venkatesan .. Appellant / Sole Accused
State represented by, The Inspector of Police, B-13, K.Pudur Police Station, Madurai, Madurai District. .. Respondent / Complainant
PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Mahila Court, Madurai, made in S.C.No.512 of 2006, dated 08.08.2008 convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 366 IPC and sentencing him to undergo 7 years RI and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo one year RI and for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo 7 years RI and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 7 years RI and both the sentences have ordered to be run concurrently.
For Appellant : Mr. A.R.L.Sundaresan Senior Counsel for Mr.J.Anandakumar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Chandrasekar Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.512 of 2006, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mahila Court, Madurai. He stood charged for the offences punishable 0under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C. By Judgment dated 08.08.2008, he was convicted under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to
2
undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under Section 376 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:PW1 is the prosecutrix. The accused and PW1 are close relatives. PW2 is the mother of PW1. PW3 is the father of PW1. PW4 is the sister of PW1. PW5 is the neighbour of PW1. PW6 is the doctor who examined the victim. PW7 is the doctor who examined the accused.
2.1. PW1 was studying twelfth standard at the relevant point of time. On 23.11.2004, she was in her grandmother's house. At about 1.30 a.m., the accused came there and caught her and took her to his house terrace and forcibly committed rape. On hearing the sound of PW1, PW2 and other family members rushed there and PW2 infact thrown the brick on the accused. Thereafter, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence, in respect of which Ex.P1-FIR was registered by the police. PW9, Sub Inspector of Police, received Ex.P1 and registered a crime in Crime No.1901 of 2004 under Ex.P8 and forwarded the same to the Court and sent a copy to the Inspector of Police. Thereafter, P.W.10-the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation and examined the witnesses and PW1 and also sent PW1 to medical examination. PW6-medical officer examined the victim-PW1 on 25.11.2004 and issued Ex.P3 and opined that no external injuries found on PW1. PW7-medical officer, who examined the accused and issued Ex.P.5, opined that there is nothing to suggest about his impotent. PW11-the Deputy Superintendent of Police, in continuation of the investigation, examined all the witnesses and laid a final report.
3
family members taking advantage of the dispute already existed between the two families have falsely implicated the accused. The allegation of rape is highly improbable. PW1 also acted to the tune of the family members. She has succumbed to the pressure of the family and gave evidence against him. Now, PW1 was married and settled in a marital life. PW1 is also present in the Court today. On enquiry, PW1 is also stated before me that only there was love affair between the accused and herself. She further stated that due to the family pressure, she had to take such extreme step. This Court is conscious of the fact that such statement of the witnesses at later stage cannot be given much importance. Resiling from the earlier statement or earlier evidence, may be due to various reasons, like winning over the witnesses or some of the extraneous consideration. But such statement of PW1 before this Court is not relevant at all for deciding the appeal.
4
that too at the mid-night, the normal conduct of a human would be to act immediately. The reaction could be otherwise, the family members would have stopped the accused from taking the victim to his house that too forcibly by gagging her mouth.
5
Fine amount, if any, paid by him, shall be refunded forthwith. Bail bond, if any, executed by him shall stand cancelled.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-I)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
To
Crl.A.(MD).No.429 of 2008 25.10.2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Sections 366 and 376 IPC should be upheld given inconsistencies in prosecutrix testimony and lack of medical evidence.
Whether the prosecution evidence suffered from artificiality and improbability entitling the accused to benefit of doubt.
Venkatesan
State represented by The Inspector of Police
N. Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
