Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 3253
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. MALA
Settu @ Ranganathan
Versus
State by Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Ranipet
Crl. A. No. 709 of 2005
Decided on : 26-07-2012
For the Appellant:Ashok Kumar, Senior Counsel, for T.R. Ravi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:C. Emalias, Government Advocate.
The evidence of the victim must be reliable and inspire confidence, and the court must be cautious in evaluating the evidence of the prosecutrix.
Headnote:
Abduction - Rape - IPC 366, 342, 376 - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for offences under Sections 366, 342, and 376 IPC for wrongfully restraining and raping a victim girl. The prosecution's case was based on the victim's testimony and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the victim not reliable and trustworthy, and noted the lack of corroborating evidence. It concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, giving the benefit of doubt to the accused.
Issues: Reliability of victim's testimony, delay in filing the complaint, lack of corroborating evidence
Ratio Decidendi: The evidence of the victim must inspire confidence and be corroborated. The absence of external injuries does not discredit the victim's testimony. The court must be cautious in evaluating the evidence of the prosecutrix.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence under Sections 366, 342, and 376 IPC were set aside, and the accused was acquitted.
1. The appeal arises out of the Judgment of conviction and sentence made in S.C.No,118 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, whereby, the accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 366, 342 and 376 IPC and for the offence under Section 366 IPC, sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo one year imprisonment; for the offence under Section 342 IPC, sentenced to undergo one year imprisonment; for the offence under Section 376 IPC, sentenced to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo one year imprisonment.
2. The respondent Police filed a charge sheet against the accused stating that on 24.12.2004, the accused had wrongfully restrained one Sundari, a victim girl, when she was proceeding to her house after finishing her work and she was taken to some other place and wrongfully confined there, where the accused committed rape upon her, thereby, committed offences under Sections 342, 366, 417 and 376 of IPC.
3. The learned Sessions Judge, after following the procedure, framed necessary charges against the accused. Since he pleaded not guilty, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 and M.O.1 were marked.
4. The case of the prosecution, based on the evidence, is as follows:
(i) P.W.1-Mahendran is the father of P.W.2-Sundari. P.W.2-Sundari, victim girl, who studied upto 7th standard, was working under the accused, who was the Chief Priest of Om Sakthi Temple. On the fateful day, i.e., on 24.12.2004, P.W.2-Sundari, went to work at morning 8 0'clock. Since she had not returned back to home at usual time, i.e. evening at 7 O'clock, P.W.1 made search of his daughter along with P.W.3-Manickam. Thereafter, he came to know that the accused abducted his daughter in a TVS 50. In spite of his effective search, he was unable to secure his daughter and the accused. Thereafter, he went to the Ranipet All women Police Station and gave a complaint. On 26.12.2004, after hearing the news that the accused and P.W.2 were at Sipcot, P.W.1 along with P.W.4-Palani and P.W.8-Anbukkarasi, Sub-Inspector of Police, went there at Ranipet Bus stop, where the accused and P.W.2 were secured by P.W.8.
(ii) P.W.2-Sundari, in her evidence, deposed that on 24.12.2004, at 7.00 p.m. she was proceeding to her house after finishing her work. When she was reaching near Erikkarai, she felt that somebody had sprinkled water on her and put a Thilakam on her forehead, after that, she was taken away in a vehicle and confined in a room, where the accused had sexual intercourse with her for several times. On 26.12.2004, since she cried and wanted to go to her house, the accused took P.W.2 to Sipcot Bus Stand. While they were standing at the Sipcot bus stand, they were caught hold by P.W.8.
(iii) On receiving the complaint from P.W.1, P.W.8 registered a case in Crime No.35 of 2004, on 26.12.2004 at 7.00 p.m., under Sections 366 IPC and prepared Ex.P1-FIR. She sent a requisition letters to the concerned Judicial Magistrate for sending the accused and P.W.2 for medical examination and sent the papers to P.W.9-Geetha, Inspector of Police. Thereafter, she examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.
(iv) P.W.5-Dr.Kumar, on receiving the letter from the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Vallaja, i.e.Ex.P2, examined the accused and gave Ex.P3-Certificate stating that he is potent.
(v) P.W.6-Dr.Sathyanarayanan, on receiving Ex.P4-letter from the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Vallaja, examined P.W.2 on 28.12.2004 and gave Ex.P5-report stating that she was subjected to sexual intercourse.
(vi) P.W.7-Dr.Rangasamy, took X-ray and assessed the age of P.W.2, stating that the age of the victim girl was above 21 years.
(vii) P.W.9, Inspector of Police, examined the Doctors and obtained certificates. Since she was transferred to other place, P.W.10-Ariyamala, Inspector of P
