2011 (2) LW(Crl) 275
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. NAGAMUTHU
Unnikrishnan @ Unni & Another
Versus
The State by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station
Criminal Appeal No.277 of 2005
Decided on : 05-08-2011
CRIMINAL APPEAL - [SECTION] 376, 366, 506, 354 - [ACT] IPC - [SUBJECT] RAPE - [KEYWORD] RAPE, ABDUCTION, CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION, ASSAULT OR CRIMINAL FORCE TO WOMAN WITH INTENT TO OUTRAGE HER MODESTY.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the alleged rape of P.W.1 by A1 with the assistance of A2. P.W.1 was allegedly abducted by A1, taken to A2's house, and sedated. While sedated, A1 allegedly raped P.W.1 and took nude photographs of her. A2 allegedly assisted in the crime by providing her house and administering an injection to P.W.1. After regaining consciousness, P.W.1 discovered the photographs and reported the incident to the police.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of rape beyond a reasonable doubt due to the lack of medical evidence and the absence of semen on P.W.1's body. However, the court found that the accused had committed the offenses of assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty (Section 354 IPC), abduction (Section 366 IPC), and criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC). The court relied on the evidence of P.W.1, the nude photographs, and the testimony of other witnesses to reach its decision.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the charge of rape beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the accused committed the offenses of assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, abduction, and criminal intimidation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of rape beyond a reasonable doubt due to the lack of medical evidence and the absence of semen on P.W.1's body. 2. The court found that the accused had committed the offenses of assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty (Section 354 IPC), abduction (Section 366 IPC), and criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC). The court relied on the evidence of P.W.1, the nude photographs, and the testimony of other witnesses to reach its decision.
Final Decision: The court convicted the accused of assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty (Section 354 IPC), abduction (Section 366 IPC), and criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC). The court sentenced the accused to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000 for the offense under Section 354 IPC, two years of rigorous imprisonment for the offense under Section 506 IPC, and three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50,000 for the offense under Section 366 IPC.
1. One of the virtues of a man is not to covet another's wife. Saint Thiruvalluvar wrote two thousand years ago in 145th couplet of 'Thirukkural' as follows:
"TAMIL"
That is:
"Mere triflel' saying thus, invades the home, so he ensures. A gain of guilt that deathless aye endures."
Which means:
"He who thinks lightly of going into the wife of another acquires guilt that will abide with him imperishably and forever."
The case on hand is of a man (A1) who, with the help of a woman (A2) allegedly attempted to covet another's wife thereby acquiring guilt which, as said by Saint Thiruvalluvar, is imperishable forever.
2. The appellants are accused Nos. one and two respectively in S.C.No.18 of 2004 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge [Mahalir Needhimandram], Coimbatore. The trial court by judgement dated 23.03.2005 convicted the 1st appellant/A1 for offences under Section 366, 376 and 506 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for 1 year for the offence under Section 366 of IPC; to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for 1 year for the offence under Section 376 of IPC; and to undergo R.I. for 2 years for the offence under Section 506 of IPC. The 2nd appellant/A2 has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 r/w 109 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for 1 year. She has been acquitted of the charge under Section 506 of IPC. Out of the above fine amount, a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been ordered to be paid as compensation to the victim [P.W.1]. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, A1 and A2 are now before this court with this criminal appeal.
3. The case of the prosecution as spoken to by P.W.1 is as follows:- P.W.1 [the victim] is the wife of P.W.2. At the time of occurrence she was 31 years old. The marriage between P.W.1 and P.W.2 was celebrated in the year 1987. They have got two children. P.W.3 is the mother of P.W.1. P.Ws.1 and 2 were residing at Manankulambu village in Kerala State. P.W.3 was residing at Coimabtore. A1 is a tenant of a portion of the house belonging to P.W.3. A1 was running a television shop in the said rented premises. In order to celebrate the marriage of the brother of P.W.1 arrangements were underway. For the said purpose, P.W.2 had come to Coimbatore and stayed along with P.W.3 at her house. During her stay, P.W.1 used to visit Sai Baba temple at Coimbatore frequently for darshan.
4. On 26.11.2002, in the morning, P.W.1 was waiting at Flower Market Bus Stand for bus to go to Sai Baba temple. At that time, A1 came in a car, stopped the same on seeing P.W.1. Blowing the horn of the car, he called P.W.1 to come near the car. P.W.1 went near the car. P.W.1 enquired her as to why she was waiting. P.W.1 told him that she was waiting for bus to go to Sai Baba temple. A1 told P.W.1 that he was also going through the way leading to Sai Baba Temple and he offered to take her in his car and to drop her in the temple. P.W.1 declined the offer. But, A1 persuaded her to get into the car. Since, A1 was repeatedly insisting , P.W.1 conceded to the request of A1 and fell into the trap. P.W.1 got into the car. There was none else in the car except A1. After some distance, A1 turned the car in a different route without proceeding to Sai Baba temple. P.W.1 questioned the same. A1 told her that he had to go to his sister's house which was very nearer to the said place. He further told that in a two minutes time, they could return after handing over an important paper to his sister. P.W.1 believed the said words. The car further proceeded. A1 stopped the car in front of a house [the said house was later on identified as A2's house]. A1 got down from the car and went into the house. P.W.1 was waiting in the car. After few minutes, a woman (later identified as A2) came out of the house and rushed towards the car. S
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.