Back
IN THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.NAGAMUTHU, J.
Pandi - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Inspector of Police – Respondents
Crl.A(MD)No.42 of 2013
Decided On : 28.07.2015
Mental Retardation - Criminal Offences - Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 450, 376 r/w 511 - The judgment discusses the evidence presented in the case and the interpretation of the legal provisions under IPC Sections 450, 376 r/w 511. The court analyzed the testimonies, medical evidence, and scientific analysis to conclude that the accused attempted to rape the victim girl and trespassed into the house, leading to the conviction under Sections 376 r/w 511 and 451 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 450 and 376(1) IPC for an incident involving a mentally retarded girl. The prosecution's case relied on the evidence of the victim's sister and medical examinations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the victim's sister to be convincing and rejected the defense's claim of a false case due to family dispute. However, the court concluded that the evidence only proved an attempt to rape, not the actual offence of rape.
Issues: The key issue was whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the offence of rape under Section 376(1) IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence, medical reports, and scientific analysis indicated an attempt to rape, leading to the conviction under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC and trespass under Section 451 IPC.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction under Sections 450 and 376(1) IPC was set aside, and he was convicted under Sections 376 r/w 511 and 451 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and two years for the respective offences.
The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.158 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions cum Mahila Court, Madurai. He stood charged for the offence under Sections 450 and 376(1) IPC. The trial Court, by judgment dated 07.06.2012, convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 450 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 376(1) IPC. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows;
(a) PW1 is the sister of the victim in this case. The victim is a mentally retarded girl aged about 21 years. On 01.06.2009, the victim girl was at her house in Keeraithurai Village, Madurai. The accused in this case was residing in the first floor of the house, wherein the victim girl and her family members were residing in a different portion of the first floor. One Mrs.Subbulakshmi was residing in the ground floor. On 01.06.2009 at about 8 to 8.30 p.m., PW1 was sitting in the ground floor with Mrs.Subbulakshmi and she was engaged in chatting with her. But, PW1 did not notice the accused. Mrs.Subbulakshmi told that the accused was proceeding to the first floor of the house. Therefore, PW1 went up to the first floor of the house. On reaching the portion, where she was residing, she found a door of the house in the main entrance was opened and the other door was closed. When she entered into the house, she found the victim girl lying on the floor and the accused lying on her. According to her, she found the accused doing violence on her. PW1 pulled him. Immediately, the accused prostrated at the feet of PW1 and pleaded to leave him. PW1 cried for help. The people residing in the ground floor rushed to the first floor of the house. On seeing them, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, the mother of PW1 returned to her house, to whom PW1 informed about the occurrence. Then, they went to the Police Station, where PW1 made a complaint about the occurrence.
(b) PW14 was the then Inspector of Police, attached to Madurai City All Women Police Station. On 02.06.2009, PW1 appeared before her at 6.30 p.m. and made a complaint under Ex.P1. She registered a case on the said complaint in Crime No.13 of 2009 under Section 376 IPC. Ex.P9 is the FIR. Then, he forwarded the complaint and FIR to the Court, took up the case for investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of the witnesses. Then, she arrested the accused on 03.06.2009 and forwarded him to the Court for judicial remand. She sent the victim girl for medical examination and through Court, she sent the accused also for medical examination. She examined all the witnesses and finally laid a charge sheet against the accused.
(c) In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined, 11 documents were exhibited and 2 material objects were marked. Out of the said witnesses, PW1 is the sister of the victim girl, who has stated that when she entered into the house, she found the accused lying on the victim girl and causing violence. The victim girl was not examined as she was unable to examine before the Court due to mental retardation. PW2 is the father of the victim girl, who has stated about the preparation of the complaint by PW1 in the Police Station. PW3 is a villager. He is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. He has heard about the occurrence subsequently. According to him, he also went along with PW1 to the Police Station to make a complaint. PW4 is the sister's husband of the victim girl. He is also not an eyewitness. According to him, after the occurrence, he noticed nail marks
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
