Dismissed

K.Maheswari, Aged 30 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC15 Mar 2024CRL A/712/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras noted lack of instructions but reviewed the acquittal on appeal under Section 372 CrPC. Upholding the trial court's finding of consent and absence of false promise of marriage, it dismissed the appeal against acquittal in an IPC 376 and 417 rape case.

What did the court decide?

Interference with the judgment of acquittal is refused; the judgment of the trial court is confirmed.

K.Maheswari, Aged 30 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.A.No.712 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15.03.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.A.No.712 of 2017

K.Maheswari

...Victim/Appellant

vs.

The State Represented by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ulundurpet (Crime No.8 of 2012) ...Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to set aside the Order of acquittal in S.C.No.196 of 2013 dated 23.02.2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Villupuram, and thereby allow the appeal.

¶12

For Appellant : M/s.N.Suresh For Respondent: Mr.E.Raj Thilak ` Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

Mr.N.Suresh, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has no

¶15

instructions. This Court finds that the appeal has not been admitted yet. The appeal has also been filed without impleading the accused. Since the learned

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

Crl.A.No.712 of 2017

¶19

counsel for the appellant has reported no instruction, this Court examined the judgment to ascertain if the judgment of acquittal has to be reversed.

¶20

2(i). The accused was charged for the offences under Sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that the accused had developed friendship with the appellant and used to take her in his bike to drop her at her house regularly; that on 01.02.2012 at about 11.00 p.m., taking advantage of the fact that the appellant was alone in her home, the accused committed the offence of rape; that he further promised the appellant that he would marry her and hence, committed the offence under Section 417 of the IPC also.

¶21

(ii). The victim/appellant gave a complaint on 03.10.2012 to P.W.9/Sub Inspector of Police,who had registered the First Information Report for the offences under Sections 417 and 376 of the IPC. The FIR was marked as Ex.P6.

¶22

(iii). P.W.10/Inspector of Police took up the investigation, and after the examination of all witnesses, he filed the final report for the offences under Sections 417 and 376 of the IPC.

¶23

(iv). It is further the case of the prosecution that the victim/appellant

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.A.No.712 of 2017

¶27

became pregnant. The accused was the biological father of the child born to the victim.

¶28

(v) P.W.1 is the victim. P.W.2 is the father of the victim. P.W.3 is the mother of the victim. P.W.4 is known to both the accused and the appellant/victim and has seen them together. P.W.4 turned hostile. P.W.5 is also known to both the appellant/victim and the accused. P.W.5 is the Mahazar Witness. P.W.6 is the Mahazar Witness. P.W.7 is the doctor who examined the victim and issued a medical report [Ex.P4]. P.W.8 is another doctor who examined the accused and issued a medical report/[Ex.P5]. As stated earlier, P.W.9 registered the FIR. P.W.10 is the investigating officer.

¶29

The learned trial Judge, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, found that there was consent, and hence, the offence of Section 376 of the IPC was not made out; that the consent was not obtained on a false promise of marriage; that P.W.1 had admitted that the accused did not have a forcible relationship. The learned Judge had observed that the physical relationship was admitted and that consent was not obtained by a misconception

¶30

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.A.No.712 of 2017

¶33

of fact. Though there was a DNA report suggesting that the accused was the biological father in the absence of evidence to establish the ingredients of Section 375 of the IPC, the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused. The trial Court also found that the accused could not have made a false promise that he would marry the victim since the victim was aware of the fact that the accused was a married man as she was a neighbour.

¶34

The view taken by the trial Court is justified in law and on facts. We see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The Judgment of the trial Court in S.C.No.196 of 2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court) Villupuram, dated 23.02.2016 is confirmed.

¶35

15.03.2024

¶36

Index : yes/no Neutral citation : yes/no dk

¶37

¶38

1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.A.No.712 of 2017

¶42

Villupuram,

¶43

2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ulundurpet.

¶44

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras, Chennai – 600 104.

SUNDER MOHAN,J.

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

¶49

Crl.A.No.712 of 2017

Crl.A.No.712 of 2017

15.03.2024

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

K.Maheswari, Aged 30 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Maheswari, Aged 30 Years, v. the State Rep by Its

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

S.a.Palanisamy Vs S.Sathiyasundari

K.Ramesh, M/a 33 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

Emrose Vs State by Inspector of Police

Yuvaraj, M/a 22 Years, Vs the State Rep. by Its

N.Nagaraj, M/45 Yrs, Vs the State Represented by

Suryakala Vs Tamizselvan