← Library
Madras High CourtCRL A/623/2007allowed

Senthil Kumar v. The Inspector Of Police

2017-07-11Honourable Mr Justice C. T. Selvam5 pages

Bail Slip The Petitioner/Accused No.1 Senthilkumar was released on bail as per the order of this Court dated :07/08/2007 in MP.1/2007 in CRl.A623/2007 on the file of this Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.07.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM Criminal Appeal No. 623 of 2007 Senthil Kumar S/o Selvaraj ... Appellant/Accused No.1

Versus

State represented by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Vriddhachalam.

...Respondent/Complainant

Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 30.04.2007 made in S.C.No.425 of 2006 of the Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) Cuddalore convicting the Appellant for an offence under Section 376 of I.P.C and sentencing him to 7 years R.I and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, 21 months S.I under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C and under section 417 of I.P.C, sentencing him to 1 year R.I and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, 3 months S.I under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C and these sentences run concurrently under section 427 of Cr.P.C.

For Appellant :

Mr.M.Murali For Respondent :

Mr.V.Arul, Additional Public Prosecutor

J U D G M E N T

This appeal arises against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Cuddalore passed in S.C.No.425 of 2006 on

30.04.2007, convicting appellant/A1 for offences u/s.376 and 417 I.P.C and sentencing him to 7 years R.I and fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d 21 months S.I for offence u/s.376 IPC and 1 year R.I and fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d 3 months S.I for offence u/s.417 IPC. Trial Court directed that sentences run concurrently.

2. The case of prosecution is that the appellant/A1, over a period of one year enticed PW-1 on false promise of marrying her and had intercourse with her. On 29.05.2006, accused and their family members arranged the marriage of appellant/A1 with one Karpagam, a resident of Karkudal village. P.W.1 had questioned appellant/A1. He told her that only a betrothal ceremony was completed and that he will stop the arrangement and marry her. While so, on 08.06.2006, at 10'o clock, appellant/A1 took PW-1 to a sugarcane field, had sexual intercourse against her will. PW-1 went home and narrated the incident to PW-2, her mother. PW-2 and PW-3, brother of deceased, went to accused's house and asked A1 to marry PW-1, which was refused by him and A2, his mother, who threatened PWs.1 and 2 using abusive language.

3. P.W.1, preferred Ex.P1, complaint on 09.06.2006. PW-11, Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Vriddhachalam examined PW-1, who sought a day's time. He issued C.S.R.No.151/2006. On 11.06.2006, PW-1 again went to the Police Station and asked PW-11 to take further action against accused 1 and 2 on her complaint dated 09.06.2006. PW-11 registered a case in Crime No.6/2006 on the file of respondent for offences u/s.417, 376 and 506(ii) I.P.C and the same is marked as Ex.P10. PW-11 sent the F.I.R, complaint and other documents to higher authorities. PW-12, Inspector of Police, received the case papers relating to Crime No.6/2006 and took up investigation. He had examined PW-1 and recorded her statement. He went to the place of occurrence at 05:30 p.m. and prepared Ex.P3, Observation Mahazar, in the presence of witnesses PWs.

6 and 7. Rough sketch is Ex.P.11. On receiving information that appellant/A1 was at Go-Mavidanthal Bus Stand, PW-12 went there and arrested him at 06.00 p.m., took him to the Police Station and then sent him to judicial custody. He examined witnesses PWs.6 & 7 and recorded their statements. On the very same day i.e. 11.06.2006, he gave a requisition to the Judicial Magistrate Court for conducting medical examination of PW-1. On 12.06.2006, he examined witnesses PWs.2 to 5 and recorded their statements. He again examined PW-1 and recorded her further statement. He examined PW-8, Dr.Senkuttuvan and recorded his statement. On 17.06.2006, he examined PW-10, Dr.Senthilkumar and PW-9, Dr.Shanmugagani and recorded their statements. On 08.08.2006, he examined Dr.Natarajan, who issued certificates of age of appellant/A1 and PW-1.On 11.08.

investigation and filed charge sheet against accused u/s.417, 376, 506(ii) IPC before learned Judicial Magistrate II, Vridhachalam. On committal, the case was tried in S.C.No.425 of 2006 on the file of learned Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Cuddalore.

4. Before trial Court, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and marked 11 exhibits. None were examined on the side of defence nor were any exhibits marked. On appreciation of materials before it, trial Court, under judgment dated 30.04.2007, convicted appellant/A1 for offences u/s.376 and 417 IPC and sentencing him to 7 years R.I and fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d 21 months S.I for offence u/s.376 IPC and 1 year R.I and fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d 3 months S.I. for offence u/s.417 IPC. There against, the present appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

6. The appellant/accused stands convicted for offence u/s. 376 and 417 IPC while his mother, charged with offence u/s. 506 (ii) IPC was acquitted by the Trial Court. D.W.1 and appellant/A1 admittedly were in a relationship for a period of one year. It is prosecution case that going against his promise of marrying P.W.1, appellant/A1, was engaged to another on 29.05.2006. The further prosecution is case that even thereafter P.W.1 obliged him with sexual favours on the night of 08.06.2006 as he promised to break his engagement and marry her. P.W.1 has spoken to having been at the respondent Police station along with her mother, brother and aunt and having preferred a complaint on 09.06.2006.

She has deposed to having been adviced to approach the accused through panchayatars, of their refusing to intervene and of she accompanied by her family members, having gone over to the house of the accused where the appellant/accused refused to marry her and his mother A2 abused them. P.W.11- Sub Inspector of Police admits to P.W.1 having preferred a complaint on 09.06.2006 and that such complaint was taken on file on 11.06.2006. P.W.12- Inspector of Police, who denies such position, admits to not having prepared the 161(3) statement or the Observation Mahazar in his own hand, informs of the same having been prepared in the hand of another Police man but denies knowledge of whom such person was.

It is the defence case that owing to a quarrel which brokeout between one Manikandan and appellant/A1 wherein both indulged in fisticuffs that a false complaint had been preferred at the instance of Manikandan and one Subramanian who was an Advocate. Though P.W.

complaint preferred by the accused, it is admitted by P.W.1 that the mother of the appellant/A1 indeed had preferred a complaint with the respondent on 11.06.2006 informing an assault by Manikandan. P.W.1 has admitted to her father being an employee of said Manikandan and that Subramanian the brother of Manikandan was an Advocate practising at Virudachalam.

7. In the light of P.W.12 denying any knowledge of the complaint preferred by the mother of the appellant/A1 and the ambivalent nature of his evidence regards to the manner in which the 161(3) Cr.P.C statements and Observation Mahazar came to be preferred, the defence case of foisting of a false case cannot be ruled out. Benefit of doubt would flow to the accused. The Criminal Appeal shall stand allowed. The judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore, passed in S.C.No.425 of 2006 on 30.04.2007, shall stand set aside. Appellant is acquitted of all charges. Fine, if any, paid shall be refunded. Bail bonds, if any, executed shall stand cancelled. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai.

2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vridhachalam, 3.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Cuddalore 4.The Superintendent Central Prison, Cuddalore 5.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Vriddhachalam.

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

7.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras-104 +1cc to Mr.M.Murali, Advocate, S.R.No.48231 Criminal Appeal No. 623 of 2007 CA(CO) GSP(05/10/2018)