High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. BASHA
Shanmugaraja & Others
Versus
The State by Inspector of Police, Chennai & Others
Crl. A. Nos.644, 688 & 746 of 2005 & 913 of 2007
Decided On : 12-08-2010
Rape - Consent - IPC 376(1), IPC 366, IPC 109, IPC 511 - The court acquitted the appellants based on the lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. The court emphasized the importance of scrutinizing the evidence in cases of sexual assault and highlighted the burden of the prosecution to prove each element of the offense, including the absence of consent. The court found the evidence of the prosecutrix unreliable and untrustworthy, and raised serious doubts about the genuineness of the written report. The court also noted the absence of marks of violence on the prosecutrix and the conduct of the parties involved, leading to the conclusion that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix, a young woman, alleged that she was raped by the appellants after being lured to a shop. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of the prosecutrix and a written report, Ex.P1, which raised doubts about its genuineness. The medical evidence did not support the prosecutrix's claims of violence, and the conduct of the prosecutrix and the accused raised questions about consent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the prosecutrix unreliable and untrustworthy, and raised serious doubts about the genuineness of the written report. The court also noted the absence of marks of violence on the prosecutrix and the conduct of the parties involved, leading to the conclusion that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony, the genuineness of the written report, and the absence of marks of violence on the prosecutrix.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of scrutinizing the evidence in cases of sexual assault and highlighted the burden of the prosecution to prove each element of the offense, including the absence of consent. The court found the evidence of the prosecutrix unreliable and untrustworthy, and raised serious doubts about the genuineness of the written report. The court also noted the absence of marks of violence on the prosecutrix and the conduct of the parties involved, leading to the conclusion that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellants based on the lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. The fine amounts paid, if any, were directed to be refunded to the appellants, and any bail bonds executed were to stand cancelled.
1. A1, A3 to A4 are the Appellants in the above Appeals. The Appellants challenged their conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai, by the judgment dated 29.07.2009, in S.C. No.666 of 2004 convicting the Appellants as hereunder: Accused Conviction under Section Sentence A1 376 (1), IPC To undergo seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo one year’ Rigorous Imprisonment A3 366, IPC To undergo five years’ imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment. A4 376(1) r/w 109, IPC 376(1) r/w 511, IPC To undergo five years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment. To undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 in default, to undergo six months, rigorous imprisonment. A5 376(1) r/w 109, IPC To undergo five years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo six months imprisonment.
2. It is brought to the notice of this Court that A2, who has been convicted for the offence under Section 366, IPC and sentenced to undergo five years’ rigorous imprisonment has not preferred any Appeal challenging his conviction and sentence and he has already served the sentence and released from the prison.
3. The background facts of the case in a nutshell are hereunder:
(i) P.W.1 is the prosecutrix; P.W.4 is the wife of A1. P.W.1 is the resident of Lalpattai and she has studied upto 9th standard. She lost her father. She is having a sister. Her mother married another person and settled at Pondicherry. P.W.1 was studying in the school by staying in a hostel and thereafter, she was staying at her grandmother’s house at Lalpattai. P.W.1’s uncle and aunt were also residing in the same house. She was working as a maid servant in a house at Lalpattai and she was getting monthly salary of Rs.50/-. P.W.1’s sister was working at Chennai in a house and she was getting a salary of Rs.1,500/-. P.W.1’s uncle and aunt suggested that she can also get more salary by getting a job at Chennai. Therefore, P.W.1 left for Chennai.
(ii) On reaching Chennai Koyambedu on 18.07.2003, P.W.1 left for the beach and she was wandering near Anna Memorial. At that time, A2 came there in an Auto and questioned her as to where she wants to go. But initially she has not given any reply. Thereafter, she informed him that she has to meet her sister who was working at Porur. P.W.1 has also told A2 that she was not having the address of her sister. A2 told her that it is not possible to search P.W.1’s sister without any address. Thereafter, A2 told her that he would get a job if she comes to his house. P.W.1 accompanied A2 in his auto and A2 took P.W.1 to A3. P.W.1 informed A3 that she has to come to meet her sister at Porur for getting a job. A3 informed P.W.1 that she is having a brother and he is running album shop and she would get a job in that shop. A3 has also told her that her brother would take care of her. A2 and A3 made P.W.1 to wait in a tea stall and went to album shop. A5 was also found at the shop. Thereafter, A3 informed P.W.1 that her brother had gone to the hospital with his wife and he would come after sometime and took P.W.1 to a cinema.
(iii) After watching the movie, A3 brought P.W.1 to the album shop of A1 and thereafter, left from the shop saying that she has to take care of her daughter, who was sleeping at the platform. A5 told P.W.1 that it would not look nice for P.W.1, being a girl, to wait in a shop during night hours and asked her to go inside the shop and sit in a room and accordingly, P.W.1 entered into the room and sat in that room. At that time A1 came and informed P.W.1 that he has given Rs.50/- to his sister A3. P.W.1 informed A1 that A3 has left for the house of A1 saying A1’s wife will take of her. A4 was listening a song from the tape re
AI
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.