Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 2091
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. DEVADASS, J.
Manoharan & Others – Petitioner
Versus
State Represented by: The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gengee Keddar Police Station – Respondent
Crl. A. No. 411 of 2009 & M. P. No. 1 of 2015
Decided on : 23-06-2015
Thangavadhana Balakrishnan, K. Kumaran, Advocates, P. Govindarajan, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The subsequent marriage of the accused and the victim, along with their family circumstances, can be considered as special reasons to reduce the sentence.
Headnote:
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - Criminal Appeal - Sections 376, 417 IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
A-1 to A-4 were convicted under Sections 376, 417 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. A-1 married the victim after conviction and they have a child. The victim pleaded for mercy and not to separate the family.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the conviction of A-1 under Sections 376 and 417 IPC but modified the sentence to the period already undergone. A-1 to A-4 were acquitted from the charges under Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. A-2 was acquitted from the charge under Section 506(i) IPC.
Issues: Conviction under Sections 376, 417 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the plea for mercy based on subsequent marriage and family circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the subsequent marriage of A-1 and the victim, their child, and the plea for mercy as special reasons to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed in part, with the conviction of A-1 under Sections 376 and 417 IPC confirmed but the sentence modified to the period already undergone. A-1 to A-4 were acquitted from the charges under Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and A-2 was acquitted from the charge under Section 506(i) IPC.
A-1 to A-4 are the appellants herein.
2. A-1 is the son of A-2 and A-3. A-4 is the then President, Kakkalur village in Vikiravandi Taluk in Villupuram District.
3. Before the learned Special Judge under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act/Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, they were tried in the Sessions Case in S.C.No.34 of 2008.
4. Ultimately, they were convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Accused | Conviction | Sentence
|
| Manoharan/A-1
| (I)Section 417 IPC
| (i) 3 months SI and fine Rs.3,000/- in default 3 months SI;
|
| (ii) Section 376 IPC
| (ii) 10 years RI and fine Rs.25,000/- in default 6 months RI;
| |
| (iii) Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
| (iii) 2 years RI and fine Rs.5,000/- in default 3 months RI
| |
| Murugaian/A-2 | (i) Section 506(i)(ii) Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
| (i) 1 year RI and fine Rs.5,000/- in default 3 months SI;(ii) 2 years RI and fine Rs.5,000/- in default 3 months RI;
|
| Chinnaponnu/A-3 | Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act | 2 years RI and fine Rs.5,000/- in default 3 months RI;
|
| Subramani/A-4 | Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act | 2 years RI and fine Rs.5,000/- in default 3 months RI;
|
The learned Special Judge has directed their sentences to run concurrently. They have paid the fine amounts.
5. The case of the prosecution is this:
(i) PW-1 and A-1 to A-4 belongs to Kakkalur village. A-1 fell in love with PW-1. He was mad after her. PW-1 was led to believe that they were made for each other, making her to believe that he will marry her, A-1 had raped PW-1.
(ii) PW-1 is an Irula girl, a Scheduled Tribe (Ex.P-4 Community Certificate issued by PW-2, Revenue Divisional Officer, Villupuram). As per Ex.P-3 Community Certificate,
A-1 to A-4 are not members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Community. As per Ex.P-7 Certificate then PW-1 was 18 years old.
(iii) Later, there was stiff opposition from A-2 and A-3 for the marriage between A-1 and PW-1. PW-1 wanted justice. She met A-4 and complained to him. He told her since she belongs to Irula Community, her marrying A-1 will bring shame to Kakkalur village. In the circumstances, PW-1 gave Ex.P-1 complaint to Kakkalur police PW-10, Sub Inspector. PW-10 registered this case (Ex.P-5 FIR). Investigation was taken by PW-13 D.S.P./Sub Divisional Officer, Villupuram.
(iv) PW-13 took up his investigation. PW-11, Dr. Pandian examined PW-1 and confirmed that she has been subjected to sexual intercourse. As per Ex.P-6 Certificate, A-1 is capable of performing sexual act. The Investigation Officer after completing his investigation, filed the Final Report before the concerned Court.
(v) The learned Special Judge considering the materials on record and upon hearing both sides, framed charges as against A-1 to A-4. They have not pleaded guilty to the charges.
(vi) To substantiate the charges, prosecution examined PWs-1 to 13, marked Exs.P-1 to P-8.
(vii) The accused were examined on the incriminating aspects in the prosecution evidence under Section 313 Cr. P.C.
(viii) They have denied the offences. They did not adduce defence evidence.
(ix) Appreciating the said evidence, the Trial Court convicted A-1 to A-4 and sentenced them as already stated in paragraph No.4.
6. The learned counsel for the first appellant/A-1 submits that so far as A-1 is concerned, she is confining her arguments only with reference to the sentence aspect. She would submit that subsequent to the conviction, A-1 married PW-1 on 17.5.2011. They have become happy married couples. A female child born to them brought further happiness to their family. In the circumstan
