Allowed¶18

Dinesh Babu v. State Rep. by

Madras HC7 Nov 2025CRL A/366/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court Division Bench (N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman JJ.), Crl.A.No.366 of 2019, decided 07.11.2025: appeal allowed; conviction under Sections 376(2)(1) and 294(b) IPC and life sentence set aside; acquittal. Key themes: sufficiency of solitary testimony of a sexual-offence victim; absence of medical evidence of injury; unexplained three-day delay in FIR (occurrence 20.10.2016, complaint 24.10.2016); complaint lodged at instance of PW2 due to previous family enmity; subnormal-victim assessment unsupported; refund of fine; discharge of bail bond.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal allowed; judgment of the trial Court dated 01.02.2019 in S.C.No.160 of 2017 set aside; appellant/accused acquitted of all charges; fine amount, if paid, to be refunded; bail bond executed by the appellant stands discharged. ¶18

Dinesh Babu Vs State Rep. by — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376(2)(1) and 294(b) IPC can stand where the prosecution case is alleged to be a product of previous enmity between the two families, the complaint was lodged at the instance of PW2 after an unexplained delay of more than three days, and the medical evidence discloses no injury to the private parts or face. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

Perusal of the Medical Officer's evidence showed no scratch, mark or abrasion on the face or private part of the victim except some abrasions on the left hand and thigh, which were not explained; the mother never mentioned any injury on PW7 until the hospital examination four days after the occurrence.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

In a case of sexual harassment, if the solitary evidence of the victim, who was subjected to sexual harassment, inspires the confidence of the Court de hors other evidence, such solitary evidence itself is sufficient to base the conviction.

¶13

Key takeaways

Except stating that the victim is sub-normal, no medical evidence substantiating that assessment was available, and the nature of the assessment made by the Medical Officer to arrive at the conclusion that the victim was subnormal was not placed before this Court.ratio¶13
If the incident had really happened, the normal conduct of the mother would have been to rush to the police station immediately; there was no explanation as to why the complaint was not given for more than three days.ratio¶14
The complaint itself came to be filed at the instance of PW2 amid admitted previous enmity between the families; the genesis of the case was introduced on PW2's instructions, rendering the version of PW7 highly doubtful.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal under S.374(2) Cr.P.C. — Conviction under S.376(2)(1) and S.294(b) IPC — Case resting on sole testimony of victim, stated to be a subnormal person — Complaint lodged three days after the alleged occurrence, admittedly at the instance of PW2 (son-in-law of PW1), amid admitted previous enmity between the two families — Medical Officer found no scratch, mark or abrasion on face or private parts; abrasions unexplained; basis of 'subnormal' assessment not placed before the Court — Mother's conduct in not approaching police immediately unexplained — Prosecution theory indicative of possible framing of the accused on some other motive — Victim's version held highly doubtful; conviction cannot rest merely on such evidence — Judgment of Sessions Judge, Magalir Court, Cuddalore, in S.C.No.160 of 2017 dated 01.02.2019 set aside; accused acquitted of all charges; fine, if paid, refunded; bail bond discharged.

¶1

2025:MHC:2585

¶2

Crl.A.No.366 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED : 07.11.2025

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN

¶9

Crl.A.No.366 of 2019

¶10

Dinesh Babu ... Appellant

¶11

Vs.

¶12

State represented by The Inspector Of Police, All Women Police Station, Sethiathope, Cuddalore District (Cr.No.7 of 2016) ... Respondent

¶13

Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Magalir Court, Cuddalore, in S.C.No.160 of 2017 dated 01.02.2019.

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.M.Soundar Vijay Arul Ram For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 01.02.2019 in S.C.No.160 of 2017 on the file of learned Sessions Judge,

¶17

Page 1 of 14

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.A.No.366 of 2019

¶20

Magalir Court, Cuddalore, the appellant/accused has filed the instant criminal appeal.

¶21

The accused was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as

¶22

follows:

¶23

	*Conviction*	*Sentence*
1	Section 376(2)(1) of IPC	To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life i.e., imprisonment for the natural life of the accused and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for oneyear
2	Section 294(b) of IPC	To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days
	These sentences wer	e ordered to run concurrently

¶24

3.The case of the prosecution is as follows :

¶25

PW7, the victim, is aged about 25 years and she is the daughter PW1.

¶26

On 20.10.2016, at about 03.00pm, she went for nature's call, at that time, the accused pushed her down and touched her private part and also forcibly inserted his penis into the victim's mouth and on hearing the cry of the girl, PW1 rushed to the spot and on seeing PW1, the accused left the place and

¶27

Page 2 of 14

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.A.No.366 of 2019

¶30

went to the nearby temple. PW1 gave a complaint on 24.10.2016 at about 15.30 hours. PW9 (Mrs.Padma, Sub-Inspector of Police), who received the complaint, registered an FIR for offences under Sections 294(b) and 376 IPC under Ex.P5 and forwarded the same to the Court and a copy was sent to the Investigation Officer. PW9 also recorded the statement of PW7. PW10 (Mr.Veeramani, Inspector of Police) took up the investigation and went to the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Magazar (Ex.P2) in the presence of PW3 and also had drawn a rough sketch (Ex.P6) and recorded the statement of witnesses and arrested the accused and sent him to the judicial custody. In the meanwhile, PW6, the Medical Officer examined the victim on 24.10.2016 at 07.45pm and the victim has stated that she was sexually assaulted by the accused on 20.10.2016 at 03.00pm and PW6 did not find any stain in the dress or injuries on the private parts, thighs etc., though abrasions were found on the left hand elbow and left knee. According to PW6, the victim was not mentally retarded but only a sub-normal person and she has clearly given the statement. PW2 is the son-in-law in PW1, who asked PW1 to go to the police station along with one Sridhar or Srilan. PW4 has also seen PW1 and has stated that the accused was spotted with the

¶31

Page 3 of 14

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.A.No.366 of 2019

¶34

victim. PW5 has stated that he has also seen the altercation between PW1 and accused on 20.10.2016 at 04.00pm and has pacified the accused and sent

¶35

him. PW10 conducted investigation and laid a final report.

¶36

The Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation, laid the final report against the accused for the offences under Sections 376(2)(1) and 294(b) of IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil.

¶37

On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

¶38

was complied with and the case was committed to the learned Principal District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore as contemplated under Section 209 of CrPC in S.C.No.160 of 2017 and was made over to Mahila Court, Cuddalore, for trial.

¶39

6.The trial Court framed the charges for the offences under Sections 376(2)(1) and 294(b) of IPC against the accused. When questioned, the accused pleaded “not guilty”.

¶40

7.To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked Exs.P1 to P6.

¶41

Page 4 of 14

¶42

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

¶43

Crl.A.No.366 of 2019

¶44

8.The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and materials on record, by judgment dated 01.02.2019, found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 376(2)(1) and 294(b) of IPC and thereby, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra.

¶45

Challenging the conviction and sentence, the instant appeal is filed

¶46

by the appellant.

¶47

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the entire case is a put up case due to previous enmity between the accused family and PW2 family and the very complaint (Ex.P1) itself came to be filed on the instruction given by PW2. It is submitted that the entire case has been projected only to fix the accused in a grave crime and the medical examination conducted on the victim does not show any injury whatsoever in the private part and this by itself falsify the theory of inserting finger in the private part. The learned counsel further submitted that if really any such incident had taken place, the villagers would not have spared the

¶48

Page 5 of 14

¶49

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

¶50

Crl.A.No.366 of 2019

¶51

appellant/accused and no independent witness has been examined except the family members of PW1 and there was undue delay in filing the FIR. The compliant was filed only on 23.10.2016 but the alleged occurrence said to have taken place on 20.10.2016. The very evidence of PW2 indicate that he has instructed PW1 to give the complaint with the help of Srilan or Sridhar, PW1 has also stated as if she has gone with those persons to the Police Station. The complaint has not been given on the same day. It is his further submission that FIR has been lodged only at the instance of PW2, after three days and the delay in filing the complaint has not been properly explained, which creates serious doubt. That apart, absolutely there is no evidence to show that PW7 was subjected to sexual harassment. The learned counsel further submitted that the allegation of the prosecution that sexual harassment said to have taken place only when the victim was attending nature's call is also highly improbable.

¶52

Page 6 of 14

¶53

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

¶54

Crl.A.No.366 of 2019

¶55

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the

¶56

evidence of the victim would show that the accused inserted his finger in the private part of the victim and also inserted his penis in her mouth and the victim has also narrated the incident to PW1 and other witnesses also seen the altercation. Therefore, the evidence of the victim, who is a subnormal person, cannot be disbelieved.

¶57

12.We have perused the entire materials available on record.

¶58

Normally in a case of sexual harassment if the solitary evidence of victim, who was subjected to sexual harassment, inspires the confidence of the Court de hors other evidence, such solitary evidence itself is sufficient to base the conviction. It is admittedly not the case of any penetrative sex. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused has inserted his finger in the private part of the victim who is stated to be a subnormal person. Except stating that she is sub-normal, no medical evidence in this regard is available to substantiate the same. Further, PW6, the medical officer has stated that the victim was subnormal but her evidence would indicate that

¶59

Page 7 of 14

¶60

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

¶61

Crl.A.No.366 of 2019

¶62

the victim was clear in thoughts and she has narrated the incident. However, to arrive a conclusion that the victim is subnormal, the nature of the assessment made by the Medical Officer has not been placed before this Court.

¶63

The contention of PW7 is that while she was attending the nature's call, the accused came there and inserted his finger in her private part and penis in her mouth and therefore, she fell down and her dresses also stained with human excreta, which has been washed later. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused is that the entire case has been foisted as there is a dispute between the two families. From a careful perusal of evidence of Medical Officer, it is seen that there is no scratch, mark or abrasion on the face or private part of the victim except some abrasion on the left hand and right thigh. The Medical Officer did not notice any other marks. PW1 though examined by the police, she never stated that there was an injury on PW7 whereas the injuries have been noted only after four days when the victim was taken to the hospital on 24.10.2016. If really any such incident has happened, the normal conduct of the person, particularly the mother would be to rush to the police station immediately. There was no

¶64

Page 8 of 14

¶65

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

¶66

Crl.A.No.366 of 2019

¶67

explanation as to why the complaint has not been given for more than three days.

¶68

PW2 is son-in-law of PW1. His evidence clearly indicate that he has instructed PW1 to go to the Police Station along with one Srilan (PW5) or Sridhar. PW1 in her evidence has also stated that she has gone with those person to the police station. However, no complaint whatsoever came to light. The other evidences, if carefully perused, would show that there are disputes between two families. PW1 herself has admitted in her evidence that there were no talking terms between accused family and her family and there is enmity between two families for more than two years and PW1 also not in talking terms with the accused. Further, the cross-examination of PW1 would clearly show that she never accompanied any relative to the police station. Having admitted that she accompanied one Srilan and Baskar to the police station, she has changed her version in the cross-examination. The Baskar was examined as PW4. He has not stated anything about accompanying PW1 to the police station and PW2's evidence would indicate that only after his duty, he visited the place on 23.10.2016, went to the police station and gave a complaint and in fact he has feign ignorance to the dispute

¶69

Page 9 of 14

¶70

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

¶71

Crl.A.No.366 of 2019

¶72

existed between his sister's daughter Divya and the accused family and this aspect has been admitted by others. When the evidence of PW7, the so called victim, if carefully perused, she has clearly admitted that there were dispute between two families and PW2 has already given a complaint against uncle of the accused and in that case uncle of the accused was acquitted. Further, she has also admitted that, they will act only as per the instructions of PW2. The specific evidence of PW7, the victim is as follows:

¶73

mJ rk;ke;jkhf vd; khkh xU tHf;F

¶74

bfhLj;J mJ rpjk;tuk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; ele;jj vd;why; Mkhk;/ me;j tHf;fpy; vjphpapd; jha;khkd; tpLjiy Mfptpl;lhu; vd;why; Mkhk;/ v';fs; Flk;gj;ij bghWj;jtiu v';fs; mf;fh tPl;Lf;fhuu; rptFkhu; brhy;go eh';fs; nfl;nghk; vd;why; rupjhd;/ v';f mk;kht[k; rptFkhh; brhy;go nfl;ghu; vd ; why; rupjhd;. ehd; brhd;dhYk; vd; mk;kh nfl;ghu;/ rptFkhh; khkh brhy;ypj;jhd; eh';fs; g[fhh;

¶75

bfhLj;njhk; vd;why; Mkhk;/”

¶76

The above evidence clearly indicate that the complaint itself came to be filed at the instance of PW2. Admittedly, there was previous enmity. Page 10 of 14

¶77

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

¶78

Crl.A.No.366 of 2019

¶79

Though PW7 has stated that she visited the hospital on the same day, the said fact is falsified by the evidence of PW6, the Medical Officer. PW6 evidence clearly shows that for the first time, the victim was brought to the hospital on 24.10.2016, after four days of the alleged occurrence. PW6 has not noted any external injuries except the abrasion and that abrasion is also not explained. Even in Ex.P1 complaint and in her evidence, the victim has not stated anything about so called injuries said to have been caused whereas the Medical Officer do not find any injuries in the private part to suggest alleged insertion of the finger and she has also not found any scratches whatsoever on the face to show that the accused has forcibly inserted his penis.

¶80

Considering these aspects, we are of the view that the version of PW7 is highly doubtful especially in the background of previous enmity existed between the families and entire genesis has been introduced only on the instruction of PW2 with whom there was a dispute existed. Therefore, though in a sexual offence case, even in the absence of medical evidence, if the victim's statement inspires the confidence of the Court, the Court will

¶81

Page 11 of 14

¶82

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

¶83

Crl.A.No.366 of 2019

¶84

normally believe the statement of the victim. However, when the entire prosecution theory clearly indicates possible framing of the case against the accused due to some other motive, merely on the basis of such evidence, the accused cannot be convicted for the grave crime. Hence, we find that there is no material to hold that there was sexual abuse. Hence the conviction ordered by the trial Court has to be interfered with and accused has to be acquitted from the case.

¶85

Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed and the judgment of the trial Court dated 01.02.2019 in S.C.No.160 of 2017, is set aside, and the appellant / accused is acquitted of all the charges framed against him. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused, shall be refunded to him. Bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand discharged.

¶86

(N.S.K., J.) (M.J.R., J.) 07.11.2025

¶87

Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes gpa To

¶88