Dismissed

Raja @ Rajan v. State Represented by

Madras HC17 Nov 2022CRL A/763/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Appeal challenged a conviction for offences under Sections 354 and 450 of IPC. The High Court found no infirmity in the trial court's order, relying on victim and parental evidence, and dismissed the appeal, directing the appellant to serve the remaining sentence.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; appellant directed to serve remaining sentence with credit for undertranslation.

Raja @ Rajan Vs State Represented by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.A.No.763 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.11.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.A.No.763 of 2019

Raja @ Rajan

... Appellant

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Udhagamandalam. Nilgiri District. (Crime No.1 of 2015) ...Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to allow this appeal and set aside the order dated 29.03.2019 passed in S.C.No.30 of 2016 passed by the Sessions Judge of Mahalir Neethimandram, (FTMC), Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris.

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.J.Ranjith Kumar for Mr.S.Sarath Chandran For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.30

¶15

of 2016 dated 29.03.2019, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge of Mahalir Neethimandram, (FTMC), Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris, thereby convicting the

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 10

¶17

Crl.A.No.763 of 2019

¶18

appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 354 and 450 of IPC.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that the victim is aged about 29 years. She is a mentally retarded woman. On 28.08.2015, at about 01.00 p.m, the accused with an intention to commit rape on the mentally retarded victim, trespassed into the house of the victim bearing Door No.7/91A, Devarsolai bazaar, Palakola Post, Kundah Taluk, Nilgiris and locked the front door of the house. Thereafter, he caught hold the victim and removed her dress. Thereafter, he forcibly pushed her down and committed rape on her. At that juncture, the father of the victim girl knocked the door and immediately, the accused opened the door and ran out from the house through the back door of the house. Hence, the complaint.

¶20

On receipt of the complaint, the respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.01 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506(i) of IPC. Later on, it was altered into Sections 450, 376 and 506(i) of IPC. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance in S.C.No.30 of 2016, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge of Mahalir Neethimandram, (FTMC), Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris.

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 10

¶22

Crl.A.No.763 of 2019

¶23

On the side of the prosecution, they had examined P.W.1 to

¶24

P.W.18 and marked Exs.P1 to P37. The prosecution had also produced M.O.1 to M.O.7. On the side of the appellant, no one was examined and no document was marked. On a perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offences under Sections 354 and 450 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and also awarded fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 354 of IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and also awarded fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 450 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, this present appeal.

¶25

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the

¶26

Doctors who examined the victim were examined as P.W.12 to P.W.15. They categorically deposed that there was no injury on the body of the victim and there was no injury on her private part. There was no evidence to show that the victim was subjected for rape. All the witnesses are interested witnesses and the prosecution failed to prove any of the charges framed as against the appellant. The occurrence took place on 28.08.2015. Whereas, the complaint was lodged

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

Page 3 of 10

¶29

Crl.A.No.763 of 2019

¶30

only on 29.08.2015. There was delay in lodging the complaint and the prosecution failed to explain the delay in lodging the complaint. The appellant had taken specific defence that due to previous enmity between both the family members, a false case has been foisted as against the appellant. The author of the complaint was a President of a temple in Devarsolai and he had misappropriated the temple funds and as such the appellant's mother had taken steps to sack him from the post of President of the said temple. Therefore, there was enmity and false complaint has been foisted as against the appellant. That apart, P.W.1 to P.W.3 compelled the appellant to marry the victim. When the appellant refused to marry the victim, a false complaint has been foisted as against the appellant. Therefore, he prayed for acquittal of charges.

¶31

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted

¶32

that in order bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined the victim as P.W.2. Her mother was examined as P.W.1. Her father was examined as P.W.3. P.W.1 to P.W.3 deposed that the appellant entered into the house and committed rape on the victim. Since there was no evidence to show that the victim girl was subjected for rape, the Trial Court acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and convicted him for the offences under

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 10

¶34

Crl.A.No.763 of 2019

¶35

Sections 354 and 450 of IPC. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly convicted the

¶36

appellant and it does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶37

Heard Mr.J.Ranjith Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent.

¶38

The victim is a mentally retarded 29 years old lady. On 28.08.2015, when the victim's parents went for their avocation, the accused entered into her house and locked the door in order to commit rape on her. He removed her dress and committed rape on her. The victim also had bite wound on her breasts and other parts. At that juncture, P.W.3 had come for lunch and found that the victim was standing without any dress. When he was knocking the door, the accused opened the door and ran away. In fact, P.W.3 had thrown a stick on the accused and it hit on the victim. It is relevant to extract the

¶39

portion of evidence of P.W.2, which is as follows,

¶40

“ vjpupiaj; bjupa[k;/ vd; tPl;ow;F nky; tupirapy; vjpupapd; tPL cs;sJ/ vd; mg;gh mk;kh ntiyf;F ngha;tpl;lhh;fs;/ 2 taJila vd; mz;zd; kfis fl;oypd; kPJ gLf;fitj;jpUe;njd;/ vd; mz;zd; bgau; rutzFkhh;. ,d;bdhU mz;zd; bgau; fUzhfud;/ kjpak; 2 kzpf;F ehd; otp ghh;j;Jf;bfhz;oUe;njd;. Jzp khw;wpf;bfhz;oUe;njd;/ mg;nghJ vjpup vd; tPl;od; fpr;rdpypUe;J Fjpj;J cs;ns te;J vd;Dila khh;ig mKf;fp. Vd; fd;dj;jpy; foj;jhd;/ vd; thia bghj;jpdhd;/ vd;id fl;oypd; nky;

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

Page 5 of 10

¶43

Crl.A.No.763 of 2019

¶44

js;sptpl;lhd;/ vd;id juju vd;W fpr;rDf;F ,Gj;Jnghdhd;/ vd;id bfLj;jhd;/ vd; mg;gh te;jhh;. Fr;rpia vLj;J vjpup kPJ tPrpdhh;/ me;j Fr;rp vd; kPJ gl;lJ/ vjpup Y';fpnahL Xotpl;lhd;”/

¶45

Her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, which was

¶46

marked as Ex.P3 and it categorically corroborated her evidence.

¶47

Her father deposed that at about 01.00 p.m, on 28.08.2015, he

¶48

went to his house for lunch and he found that all the doors were closed as usual. Therefore, he had seen inside the house through the window and found that the accused was standing without dress and the victim was also without any dress. Immediately, he called and informed about the occurrence to his neighbours, who were examined as P.W.4 and P.W.5. Immediately, the accused opened the door and ran away. P.W.3 thrown a stick on the accused, but it had hit the victim. He further deposed that he informed his sons and only after their arrival on the next day, he lodged a complaint. This evidence was also categorically corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5. Thereafter, P.W.3 informed his wife, who was examined as P.W.1. She also corroborated the evidences of P.W.2 and P.W.3. The relevant portion of the evidence of P.W.1, is as follows,

¶49

“ vd;Dila 4tJ kfs; uhjhtpw;F 29 tajhfpwJ/ uhjhtpw;F K:is tsu;r;rp FiwghL ,Uf;fpwJ/ ehd; Typ ntiyf;F nghfpnwd;/ vd; fztu; ML nka;f;f bry;thh;/ 28/08/2015 md;W ehd; ntiyf;F nghndd;/ vd; kfis jdpahf tPl;oy; tpl;L nghndd;/ kjpak; 1 kzpf;F vd; tPl;Lfhuh; tPl;ow;F rhg;gpl brd;wpUf;fpwhh;/ tPl;od; K:d;W fjt[fSk; milj;J itj;jpUe;jjhft[k;. vd; fztu; cs;ns ngha;

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

Page 6 of 10

¶52

Crl.A.No.763 of 2019

¶53

ghh;j;j nghJ uhjh epu;thzkhf ,Ue;jjhft[k;. vjpup bfLj;Jtpl;ljhft[k;. nky; tPl;oy; FoapUf;Fk; rhkpehjd; kw;Wk; rnuh$pdpia Tg;gpl;L fhl;otpl;L ghh;j;j nghJ vjpup Y';fpia njhypy; nghl;Lf;bfhz;L fpr;rd; fjit jpwe;J Xotpl;ljhft[k; vd;dplk; te;J brhd;dhh;/ ehd; te;J ghh;j;j nghJ vd; kfs; KG epu;thzkhf epd;W bfhz;oUe;jhs;/ jiy my';nfhykhf ,Ue;jJ/ vdf;F if fhy; Xlhky; nkl;Lg;ghisaj;jpy; cs;s xU kfd; rutzFkhUf;Fk;. nfhitapy; ,Uf;Fk; ,d;bdhU kfd; fUzhfuDf;Fk; nghd; bra;J brhd;ndd;/ kWehs; fhiy 11 kzpf;F kfd;fs; te;jhh;fs;/ gpwF khiy 7 kzpf;F Cl;o kfspu; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; g[fhh; bfhLj;njd;/ ,jpYs;s ifbaGj;J vd;DilaJ”/

¶54

It is seen that after arrival of her sons, she had handed over the dresses of the victim to the respondent and lodged a complaint, which was marked as Ex.P1. After registration of FIR, P.W.2 was subjected for medical examination. She was examined by P.W.15. She stated before the Doctor that one known person had committed rape on her. The Doctor found no external injury on her body and her hymen was not intact partly. He further stated that she was not subjected for any physical relationship. Though, there was no injury on her body, the evidence is clear that the accused removed her dress and attempted to commit rape on her. The evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that the accused committed rape and therefore the offence under Sections 354 and 450 of IPC is clearly attracted as against the appellant.

¶55

Therefore, the prosecution proved its case beyond any doubt.

¶56

Hence, the Court below rightly convicted the appellant and this Court finds no

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

Page 7 of 10

¶59

Crl.A.No.763 of 2019

¶60

infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to secure the appellant to serve the remaining period of sentence. It is also directed that the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant, if any, shall be given set off, as required under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

¶61

Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.

¶62

17.11.2022

¶63

Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No mn

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 10

¶65

Crl.A.No.763 of 2019

¶66

¶67

The Sessions Judge of Mahalir Neethimandram, (FTMC), Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris.

¶68

The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Udhagamandalam. Nilgiri District.

¶69

The Public Prosecutor,

¶70

High Court, Madras.

¶71

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 10

¶72

Crl.A.No.763 of 2019

¶73

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Crl.A.No.763 of 2019

17.11.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶78

Page 10 of 10

Raja @ Rajan v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja @ Rajan v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Senthilkumar Vs State by

C.Chandru, Aged 25 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Selvaraj, M/A.27 Years, Vs the State Represented by

Bhuvaneswaran Vs State Represented by

Kishore Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Balaji Vs E.Vijayakumar