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

1998 Supreme(Mad) 1450

High Court of Judicature at Madras
P.D. DINAKARAN
Kumar & Others
Versus
State by Inspector of Police, Wallajabath Police Station, Kancheepuram District
Crl.R.C. No. 352 of 1998
Decided On : 30-10-1998

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:T. Sudanthiram, Advocate.
For the Respondents:M.Gunasekaran, Government Advocate, for State.

Due to absence of external injuries on the person of victim case of prosecution cannot be disbelieved.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 376-Rape-Conviction and sentence-Sustainability of-Contention that no external injuries found on the person of victim-Victims vagina admitting two fingers-Held, absence of external injuries on the person of victim is no ground for disbelieving case of prosecution-Moreover, vagina admitting two fingers is not a cause for holding victim habitual to sexual intercourse-Conviction upheld.

Judgment

1. The above revision is directed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 24.3.1998 in C.A.No.18 of 1997, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram, in S.C.No.1 of 1996, dated 25.2.1997, convicting the Accused 1 and 2 under Secs.366 and 376, I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 for each offence, both the sentences to run concurrently, and convicting the third accused under Sec.376 I.P.C., read with 34, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 in default of which, to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for three months in addition.

2. The revision petitioners are accused in S.C.No. 1 of 1996, on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram. A-1 and A-2 were facing trial for the offences punishable under Secs.366 and 376, I.P.C, whereas, A-3 was facing trial for the offence punishable under Secs.376 read with 34, I.P.C. with regard to an alleged occurrence, said to have been taken place 21.12.1994 at about 6.30 p.m. Azhvar Colony, within the jurisdiction of the respondent police station.

3. According to the prosecution, one, by name Sarala the victim, examined as P.W.I, was returning to her house, after purchasing provisions from the shop owned by a Nadar in the village. On the way to her house, she was intercepted by A-1, A-2 and A-3 respectively. A-1 stuffed a cloth in the mouth of P.W.1 and A-2 lifted P.W.1 and carried her to the house of A-1 and both A-1 and A-2 closed the doors of A-1 ‘s house, while A-3 was standing and waiting at the doors to see whether anyone was coming; A-2, first raped the said Sarala, the prosecutrix, P.W. 1, and thereafter, A-1 raped P.W.I. When A-1 and A-2 called A-3 to rape P.W.1, A-3 refused to come and told that he would stand outside the house of A-1 and watch whether anyone was coming. In the meanwhile, since the prosecutrix shouted, A-1 and A-2 opened the doors and all ran away. Immediately thereafter, the prosecutrix went to her house and informed her father, mother and brother, who were examined as P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 respectively. On the very next day, a complaint, was lodged which was marked as Ex.P-1 to the respondent police, and thereafter, she was taken to a lady doctor, who was examined as P.W.5, through whom, accident register was marked as Ex.P-2.

4. P.W.6 examined P.W. 1 as well as A-1 and A-2 who, by Ex.P-5, certified that P.W.I was aged about 16 to 17 years old, and also gave potential certificates marked as Exs.P-4 and P-5 for A-1 and A-2 respectively; P.W.7 and P.W.8, who turned hostile, were examined as eye witnesses; P.W.9, was the witness to the observation mahazar which was marked as Ex.P-6. The prosecution also produced M.O.1 to.M.O.4, namely:

“TAMIL”

as material objects and marked the chemical analysis report of the said clothes, which was marked as Ex.P-12.

5. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram, in the light of the above evidences, namely P.W.1 to P.W.5 and P.W.9 read with Ex.P-2, by his order dated 25.2.1997 in S.C.No. 1 of 1996, convicted A-1 and A-2 under Secs.366 and 376, I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000 for each offences, both the sentences to run concurrently, and convicted the third accused under Sec.376, I.P.C, read with 34, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for seven years and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000, in default of which, to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for three months in addition, which was. on appeal in C.A.No. 18 of 1997, by order dated 24.3.1998, confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. Hence, the above revision.

6. Mr.T.Sudanthiram, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, invites my attention to Ex.P-12, n
































































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