High Court dismissed Criminal Appeal filed by Ramesh against conviction for sexual offences involving a minor. Upheld Sessions Court finding that victim testimony was natural and cogent despite discrepancies on clothing. Confirmed conviction under IPC 366A/376.
Criminal Appeal dismissed; judgment of Sessions Court dated 28.02.2017 confirmed.
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.
Crl.A.No.350 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Criminal Appeal No. 350 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.7804 of 2017
Ramesh
.. Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by its The Inspector of Police Kadaladi Police Station, Kadaladi, Tiruvannamalai District. (Crime No.106 of 2010)
.. Respondent
Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge (FAC), Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai, in S.C. No. 13 of 2011 dated 28.02.2017 and acquit the Appellant.
For Appellant : Mr. T. Prabhu (Legal Aid Counsel) For Respondent : Mrs. G.V. Kasthuri Additional Public Prosecutor
J U D G M E N T
The Appellant is the sole Accused in Sessions Case No.13 of 2011 on
the file of the learned Sessions Judge (FAC), Fast Track Mahila Court, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/18
Crl.A.No.350 of 2017
Tiruvannamalai. After conclusion of trial, by the judgment dated 28th February
2017, the Appellant was convicted and sentenced for the following offences:-
| Convicted for the offence | Period of Sentence |
|---|---|
| S. 366 A of Indian Penal Code | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of oneyear |
| S. 376 of Indian Penal Code | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of oneyear |
were ordered to run concurrently and the period of sentence already undergone by him from 14.02.2010 to 22.04.2010 shall be set of under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
deposition of P.W-1, is succinctly narrated hereunder:-
5.30 pm when he was in the land of Chairman Subramani and doing work, he https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/18
Crl.A.No.350 of 2017
had seen his daughter (P.W-2) and wife (P.W-3) washing their clothes in the pump shed nearby. Later, P.W-3 left to her house leaving P.W-2 in the pump shed as P.W-2 stated to come home along with her father (P.W-1). Sometime later, P.W-1 heard the noise of his daughter and he rushed to the land of Saminathan where he saw the Accused running from that place. On searching for his daughter, P.W-1 saw his daughter with bleeding on her mouth and chest and is lying without dress. According to P.W-1, at the time of occurrence, her daughter was 7 years old and studying third standard in a School. When P.W-1 asked his daughter as to what has happened, she has narrated to him that the Accused told him to take her to her father, closed her mouth, took her to the sugar cane garden of Swaminathan where he put her on the ground, bite on her chest and mouth. Immediately, the Villagers came there and asked P.W-1 to take P.W-2 to the hospital, but P.W-1 took P.W-2 to her house and from where both P.W-1 and P.W-3 took P.W-2 to the hospital.
3.2. It is seen from the records that the victim girl was admitted in Tiruvannamalai Government Hospital. On intimation from the Doctor, P.W-9, Sub-Inspector of Police, rushed to the hospital on the intervening night of 13.02.2011 and 14.02.2011 at 12.00 hours where he recorded the statement of P.W-1. Later, on 14.02.2010 at about 6.00 am, he went to the Police Station
3/18
Crl.A.No.350 of 2017
and based on the statement of P.W-1, he registered a case in Crime No. 106 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 376, 511, 324 and 377 of IPC. Ex.P-7 is the First Information Report in this case.
3.3. On receipt of Ex.P-7, First Information Report, P.W-12, Inspector
of Police, Kadaladi Police Station had taken up the case for investigation and went to the scene of occurrence at about 8.00 am on 14.02.2010 where he drew a sample sketch under Ex.P-9. He also prepared an observation mahazar signed by P.W-6 and one Ravi. He also recorded the statement of one Periyasamy, Velu (P.W-4), Mani (P.W-5), Swaminathan, Rajini (P.W-6) and recorded their statement. He also recorded the statement of P.W-1, P.W-3 and P.W-2 (victim) girl and recorded their statement. On the same day at about 01.30 pm, he arrested the Accused in the Coot Road, Kanchi and remanded
him to judicial custody. Later, he had sent the Accused to medical examination with a requisition letter addressed to the Medical Officer, Government Medical College and Hospital, Thiruvannamalai. On examination of the Accused, P.W-7, the Doctor assessed his age as above 21 years. Subsequently, P.W-12 has given a requisition letter addressed to the Judicial Magistrate, Polur seeking to subject the victim girl for medical examination. Accordingly, the victim girl was subjected to medical examination by P.W-8,
4/18
Crl.A.No.350 of 2017
Dr. Ramaa. The Accident Register issued by P.W-8 was marked as Ex.P-5.
After concluding his investigation, P.W-12 has filed the final report against the Appellant/Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC.
3.4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Polur, before whom the charge sheet was filed, taken it on record. Since the offences covered in the charge sheet are triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. On appearance of the Accused and after hearing the Prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge (FAC), Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai, had framed charges against the Appellant for the offences under Sections 366 (A) and 376 of IPC. When questioned, the Accused denied the charges and therefore, trial commenced.
3.5. During trial, in order to prove the charges against the Appellant, the Prosecution had examined P.W-1 to P.W-12 and marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9. That apart, M.O-1 and M.O-2 were also marked. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Sessions Judge (FAC), Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai, by the impugned Judgment dated 28.02.2017 in S.C. No. 13 of 2011 convicted and sentenced the Appellant/Accused, which are more fully set out
5/18
Crl.A.No.350 of 2017
at the beginning of this Judgment. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 28.02.2017, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant.
representation for the Appellant. The Appellant also did not appear before this Court. Therefore, this Court addressed the Legal Aid Committee attached to this Court to nominate a Counsel having sufficient experience on the criminal side to appear on behalf of the Appellant. Accordingly, the Legal Aid Committee attached to this Court had nominated Mr. T. Prabhu and Ms. V. Hemalatha, Legal Aid Counsels, on behalf of the Appellant.
Counsel from Legal Aid appeared on behalf of the Appellant and submitted his argument.
6/18
Crl.A.No.350 of 2017
Prosecution properly and it vitiates the entire theory put up by the Prosecution. Further, the learned Counsel invited the attention of this Court to the contents of the complaint under Ex.P-1. As per the complaint, Head Constable 786 Sreenuvasan came to Kadaladi Police Station and reported P.W-9 that he had recorded the statement of P.W-1 at Government Hospital. He also stated that he had gone to the ward, examined the father of the victim, and recorded the oral complaint, based on which, the First Information Report in Crime No.106 of 2010 was registered at the Kadaladi Police Station, Tiruvannamalai. As per the Prosecution case, P.W-2, the victim was present along with her father in the agricultural field. When P.W-1 was about to return home, he found that his child was missing. He went in search of the child and he heard some cries from the sugarcane fields. When he went along with P.W-4, he saw the Accused running from the sugarcane field. At that time, he had seen his daughter coming out of the field crying and they came to know that she had been sexually assaulted by the Accused. According to the learned Counsel, P.W-1 had stated to the Doctor that the occurrence had taken place in his field, whereas, in the first information report, it was stated that the occurrence had taken place in the sugar cane field of Saminathan. Further, in the complaint, he has stated that he saw his daughter without any dress, which was not corroborated by any other witnesses. It is also stated by P.W-1 that no one has
7/18
Crl.A.No.350 of 2017
seen the victim girl without dress, but P.W-4, Velu said that he immediately reached the scene of occurrence and saw the victim girl without dress. Similarly, the injuries said to have been suffered by P.W-2, injured girl, as stated by P.W-1 and other witnesses substantially differs. Moreover, the victim girl, clearly stated that at the time when his father came to rescue her, she was wearing the underwear. This portion of the deposition demolishes the deposition of P.W-1 and P.W-4 that they saw the victim girl without dress. Even though P.W-4 and others asked P.W-1 to go to hospital immediately, he casually taken the child to his house. In any event, there is enormous delay in giving the complaint and therefore, the case projected by the Prosecution is unbelievable.
8/18
Crl.A.No.350 of 2017
contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the charge under Section 376 of IPC is not made out. Such a charge is baseless and it was not spoken to even by medical witnesses or ocular witnesses. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that there are glaring inconsistencies in the case projected by the Prosecution, while so, it is unsafe to pass a judgment of conviction on the Accused. Accordingly, he seeks to set aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge (FAC), Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai and to allow this Criminal Appeal.
8. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently
objected to the line of argument made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, stating that Ex.P-6 is sufficient to convict the Accused. Under Ex.P-6, it is clearly recorded that the victim suffered injuries in her vagina. The Doctor had deposed clearly before the Court that, on touching the vagina, it bled, which suggests there was sexual assault on the child by the Accused. P.W-4 is an independent witness. He states that at the time of occurrence, on hearing the cries of P.W-1, he went there and saw P.W-1 rescuing his daughter from the sugarcane field. At that time, the victim girl was without dress and there are injuries on her chest, cheek and vagina. Further, P.W-1 shouted that
9/18
Crl.A.No.350 of 2017
the victim Ramesh is running and P.W-4 heard P,W-1 saying so. Therefore, the presence of the Appellant/Accused at the scene of occurrence is proved by P.W-1 as well as P.W-4.
case of this nature, the deposition of the victim girl is sufficient. The victim girl was examined before the Court and at that time, she was studying in VIII Standard. At the time of occurrence, the victim girl was studying Third Standard. The victim girl, in her deposition clearly stated that the Accused had caused injuries by biting her vagina. She also deposed that since she shouted, the Accused bite her in the mouth and caused injury there also. This piece of deposition of P.W-2 is sufficient to convict the Appellant/Accused. The deposition of P.W-2 is natural and consistent with the medical evidence. In this context, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganesan Vs. State represented by its Inspector of Police reported in 2020 10 SCC 573 , wherein it was held that when the evidence of the Prosecutrix/victim of crime inspires confidence of the learned Trial Judge, the Court can convict the Accused.
10/18
Crl.A.No.350 of 2017
Accused is having bad antecedent even while in Jail. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that after conviction by the trial Court, the Appellant/Accused was secured and was in jail. While in Jail, he was engaged in gardening work. At that time, on 03.07.2019 the Appellant/Accused escaped from the jail. In this context, a case in Crime No. 278 of 2019 for the offence under Section 224 of IPC was registered on the file of Bagayam Police Station. Subsequently, the said case was taken on file in S.T.C. No. 817 of 2021 in which also, the Appellant/Accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed as having no merits. It is also submitted that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge (FAC), Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai, is based on the material evidence let in by the Prosecution and it cannot be found to be perverse. Accordingly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
11/18
Crl.A.No.350 of 2017
Point for consideration:
Whether the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai, in S.C.No.13 of 2011 dated 28.02.2017 is to be set aside as perverse?
Prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. P.W-1 is the father of the victim girl, P.W-2 in this case. P.W-3 is the wife of P.W-1 and mother of P.W-2. P.W-4 is one of the Villagers in the occurrence Village and is known to P.W-1 as well as the Accused. P.W-5 is the brother of P.W-1. P.W-6 is also one of the Villagers in the occurrence Village. P.W-7 and P.W-8 are Doctors and P.W-9 is the Head Constable attached to Kadaladi Police Station. P.W-10 is the Doctor before whom the Appellant was produced and who had performed the potency test on him. P.W-11 is the Special Sub Inspector of Police and P.W-12 is the investigation officer in this case.
12/18
Crl.A.No.350 of 2017
Appellant/Accused fleeing from the scene of occurrence. When P.W-1 shouted, P.W-4 came to the scene of occurrence. P.W-1 informed P.W-4 that the Accused is running away. P.W-4 also corroborated the deposition of P.W1 that P.W-1 shouted that the Accused is running away. P.W-4 also corroborated the deposition of P.W-1 that he saw the minor girl, without dress. However, when the victim girl was examined, she has stated that when her father rescued her from the sugarcane field, she was wearing an underwear. This inconsistency, in the opinion of this Court, may not in any manner affect the credibility of the case of the prosecution.
13/18
Crl.A.No.350 of 2017
portion of the victim girl. She has stated that even if a finger is penetrated into the vaginal portion, the victim girl felt enormous pain. She also stated that the victim girl suffered 3 bruises injuries of 1 x 1 cm in mandible. When the vagina was examined, P.W-8 has stated that it had the tendency that if it is touched, blood may ooze out. She also noticed blood stains in her vaginal area. The deposition of P.W-8, Doctor and the Accident Register issued by her under Ex.P-6 clearly shows that the victim girl had suffered injury at the instance of the Appellant/Accused. The injuries suffered by the victim girl has been clearly noted under Ex.P-6 by the Doctor, P.W-8.
14/18
Crl.A.No.350 of 2017
satisfied that the testimony of the victim girl is natural and cogent. The deposition of P.W-2 alone is sufficient to convict the Accused.
Prosecutor brought to the notice of this Court the antecedent of the Appellant/Accused. When the Appellant/Accused was undergoing incarceration, he escaped from the jail and later he was apprehended by the Bagayam Police Officials. Thus, the Appellant is not having good conduct and he had even managed to scale up walls of the prison to escape from the clutches of law. Such a conduct of the Appellant/Accused is also taken note of by this Court.
15/18
Crl.A.No.350 of 2017
answered against the Appellant/Accused and in favour of the Prosecution. The Judgment dated 28.02.2017 made in Sessions Case No. 13 of 2011 by the learned Sessions Judge (FAC), Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai is found proper and the same is to be confirmed.
In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed . The Judgment dated 28.02.2017 made in Sessions Case No. 13 of 2011 by the learned Sessions Judge (FAC), Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai is confirmed. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
18.10.2023
cda Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order
16/18
Crl.A.No.350 of 2017
To
17/18
Crl.A.No.350 of 2017
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.,
cda
Crl.A.No.350 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.7804 of 2017
18.10.2023
18/18
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge convicting the appellant is to be set aside as perverse?
Whether the testimony of the victim girl is natural and cogent sufficient to convict the accused without other eyewitnesses to the assault?
Whether the inconsistencies regarding the victim's clothing affect the credibility of the prosecution case?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ganesan Vs. StateReferred¶74
Ganesan Vs. State represented by its Inspector of Police 2020 10 SCC 573 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramesh
State represented by its Inspector of Police
Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
