Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 2194
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J.
Subbaiah
Versus
State represented by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palayamkottai
Crl.A.(MD)No. 76 of 2007
Decided On: 04-08-2014
For the Appellant:V. Kathirvelu, Senior Counsel for K. Prabhu, Advocate.
For the Respondents: T. Mohan, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, considering the contradictions and lacunae in the prosecution case, the reliability of the witnesses, and the probability of the defense theory.
Headnote:
Section 376 - Criminal Law - Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 - [Sections 354, 376 r/w 511 IPC, Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998] - The court discussed the evidence and arguments presented by both the appellant and the respondent. The court found that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on the appellant/accused were erroneous and infirm, requiring interference by the Court. The Court analyzed the contradictions and lacunae in the prosecution case, the reliability of the witnesses, and the probability of the defense theory. The Court concluded that the conviction recorded by the trial Court could not stand the scrutiny and set aside the Judgment of the trial Court, acquitting the appellant/accused of the said offence.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved alleged offences under Sections 354 and 376 r/w 511 IPC and an offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998. The victim, a six-year-old girl, was allegedly sexually assaulted by the accused. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies, medical examinations, and circumstantial evidence. The accused denied the allegations, claiming a false case due to previous enmity.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on the appellant/accused were erroneous and infirm, requiring interference by the Court. The Court analyzed the contradictions and lacunae in the prosecution case, the reliability of the witnesses, and the probability of the defense theory. The Court concluded that the conviction recorded by the trial Court could not stand the scrutiny and set aside the Judgment of the trial Court, acquitting the appellant/accused of the said offence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on the appellant/accused were erroneous and infirm, requiring interference by the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the contradictions and lacunae in the prosecution case, the reliability of the witnesses, and the probability of the defense theory. The Court concluded that the conviction recorded by the trial Court could not stand the scrutiny and set aside the Judgment of the trial Court, acquitting the appellant/accused of the said offence.
Final Decision: The appeal succeeded, and the Judgment of the trial Court convicting the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC was set aside. The appellant/accused was acquitted of the said offence. The bail bond executed by the appellant/accused was discharged, and any fine amount paid by the accused was to be refunded.
The sole accused in Sessions Case No.133 of 2006, decided by Mahalir Neethimandram, Tirunelveli, has come forward with the appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the Judgment of the trial Court, both in respect of conviction and also in respect of sentence.
2. A case was registered by P.W.10, the Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palayamkottai in Crime No.16 of 2005 for alleged offences under Sections 354 and 376 r/w 511 IPC and also an offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998. Initially investigation of the case was done by P.W.11-Tmt.Nalini, the then Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palayamkottai. Subsequently, her successor in office viz., P.W.12-Tmt.Maria Ronickam, Inspector of Police, continued the investigation and submitted a final report dated 30.01.2006 accusing the appellant herein of committing the above said offences on 20.07.2005 at about 4.00 p.m. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, took it on file as P.R.C.No.2 of 2006, supplied copies of the documents sought to be relied on by the prosecution to the appellant herein/accused and committed the case for trial to the Court of Session, Tirunelveli Division, as one of the offences alleged against the appellant/accused, viz., the offence punishable under Section 376 r/w Section 511 IPC was exclusively triable by a Court of Session. Thus, the case was taken on file by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli as Sessions Case No.133 of 2006 and the same was made over to the Mahalir Neethimandram on point of jurisdiction, for disposal according to law.
3. On appearance, the appellant/accused denied the allegations. Necessary charges were framed and a trial was conducted, since the appellant pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the prosecution case, twelve witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 12 and 18 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P18 on the side of the prosecution. One material object was marked. After evidence of the prosecution was concluded, the incriminating materials found in the prosecution evidence were culled out and the appellant herein/accused was questioned regarding those materials under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant/accused denied the evidence relied on by the prosecution and submitted that due to previous enmity, a false case was cooked up and the family members and close relatives of the defacto complainant were made to depose against him with a view to get him convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude. No witness was examined and no document was produced on the side of the accused.
4. The learned trial Judge considered the evidence after hearing the arguments advanced on both sides and upon such consideration, arrived at a conclusion that the charge under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC alone stood proved, whereas the other two charges viz., charges for offences under Section 354 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 were not proved. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge recorded conviction convicting the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC. After giving an opportunity to the appellant/accused to make his representation regarding punishment, the learned trial Judge sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-with a further direction that in case of default in payment of fine, he should undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Incorporating the order of conviction and sentence, the learned trial Judge pronounced the Judgment on 31.01.2007. The said Judgment is challenged in the present appeal, both in respect of conviction and sentence.
5. Before ever dealing with the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and on behalf of the respondent in this appeal, it shall be helpful to briefly narrate the case of the prosecution.
6. The brief story of the prosecution
