SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Mad) 174

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN
Swami @ Ramakrishnan
Versus
State by Inspector of Police G2 Puthumanthu Police Station Nilgiris District
Crl.A.Nos.747 of 2005,733 of 2002
Decided on: 19-01-2010

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S.N. Arunkumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Hasan Mohammed Jinnah, APP.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of consent and a false promise to marry must be proven by the prosecution in cases of rape and fraudulent intention.

Headnote:

IPC - Criminal Appeal - Section 376, Section 506(2), Section 417 - The court discussed the evidence related to the charges under Section 376 (rape), Section 506(2) (criminal intimidation), and Section 417 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code. The court analyzed the evidence of the prosecutrix, the DNA report, and the age certificate, and considered the legal principles related to consent, false promise to marry, and fraudulent intention. The court found that the evidence did not establish the absence of consent or a false promise to marry, and acquitted the accused of all charges.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for the offences of rape, criminal intimidation, and cheating under the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case was based on the rape of the victim, who became pregnant and alleged that the appellant refused to marry her.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence did not establish the absence of consent or a false promise to marry, and acquitted the accused of all charges.

Issues: The issues revolved around the evidence of rape, consent, false promise to marry, and fraudulent intention, as well as the validity of the joint complaint filed by the Panchayatars.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence of the prosecutrix, the DNA report, and the age certificate, and applied legal principles related to consent, false promise to marry, and fraudulent intention. The court also discussed the validity of the joint complaint filed by the Panchayatars.

Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused of all charges and ordered his release, finding that the evidence did not establish the absence of consent or a false promise to marry.

Judgment :

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgement dated 03.09.2004 passed in SC.No.11/2004 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Uthagamandalam, Nilgiris District, convicting and sentencing the Appellant/accused for the offence under Section 376 of IPC to undergo ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-in default to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and for the offence under Section 506(2) of IPC to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment and for the offence under Section 417 of IPC to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment and ordering the all the sentences to run concurrently.

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgement dated 03.09.2004 passed in SC.No.11/2004 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Uthagamandalam, Nilgiris District, convicting and sentencing the Appellant/accused for the offence under Section 376 of IPC to undergo ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and for the offence under Section 506(2) of IPC to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment and for the offence under Section 417 of IPC to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment and ordering the all the sentences to run concurrently.

2. Thecase of the Prosecution is as follows:-

a. One Venkatesh/PW.1 is the brother and Lakshmi/PW.3 is the mother of Yasodha/PW.2, the victim. In the month of August 1999, on one day at 3.00 p.m the Appellant raped Yashodha forcibly, when she went to cut grass for the cattle and he threatened her to kill her, if she disclosed it to anyone and thereafter, he had sexual inter course with her several times by threatening her and giving false assurance to marry her. She became 6 months pregnant and the same was confirmed by the Doctor, when she was taken by her mother for stomach ache and the victim informed the incident to her family members and on 8.5.2000 gave birth to a female child and even thereafter, the Appellant refused to marry her.

d. PW.6 Doctor Chitra Vijayaraj examined the victim on 11.7.2000 and opined that she was 6 months pregnant and issued prescription Ex.P3.

c. Since the Appellant refused to marry the victim, PW.1 gave a petition to the Village Panchayatars and in the Panchayat held, the Appellant denied the allegation and refused to marry her. Hence, PW.1 and the Panchayatars gave a complainant Ex.P1 to the All Women Police Station, Udhagamandalam. On receipt of the complaint, PW.10 the Inspector of Police attached to the said Police Station registered a petition in No.80/2000 and examined the victim and recorded her statement Ex.P8 and on getting permission from the concerned court registered a case in Cr.No.135/2000 for the offence under Section 417 of IPC and prepared the printed FIR Ex.P9 and sent the documents to the concerned court and took up the case for further investigation and on 1.7.2000 went to the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P2 and prepared a rough sketch Ex.P10 in the presence of the witnesses Rangappan and Sivadas and obtained their signatures and also examined the Doctor Saraswathi Mani who gave treatment to the victim and received OP Slip Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 Scan report from her and sent a requisition Ex.P17 to the concerned court for radiological test of the victim to find out the age of the victim.

d. PW.7Doctor Jayalakshmi on 24.11.2000 after examining the victim issued age certificate Ex.P5. PW.10 received a birth certificate Ex.P13 of the child. Pw.8 Inspector of Police attached to the Pudumandhu Police Station on receipt of the case file on 6.11.2000 at 6.30 p.m. arr























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top