Back
IN THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.NAGAMUTHU, J.
J.Kanagaraj - Appellant
Vs.
State represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL (MD).No.187 of 2013
Decided On : 05.08.2015
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Sections 376 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code - Sections 376, 506(i) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence under Section 376 r/w Section 511 and Section 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. It highlighted the interpretation of child witness testimony, corroboration of evidence, and the sentencing provisions under Section 376 r/w Section 511. The court also addressed the mitigating circumstances and reformation of the accused, influencing the decision to reduce the substantive sentence of imprisonment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 376 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code for an incident involving the sexual assault of a six-year-old girl. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies, medical examinations, and material objects. The appellant denied the charges and presented a witness to support his defense.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence, including the testimony of the child witness, corroboration from other sources, and the medical evidence. It concluded that the appellant attempted to rape the victim and intimidated her not to disclose the incident. The court also addressed the sentencing and reduced the substantive sentence based on mitigating circumstances and reformation of the accused.
Issues: The issues involved the credibility of the child witness, corroboration of evidence, delay in filing the complaint, and the quantum of punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for close scrutiny of child witness testimony, the admissibility of disclosure statements in the course of the same transaction, and the interpretation of medical evidence to corroborate the victim's testimony. The court also applied the sentencing provisions and considered mitigating circumstances and reformation of the accused.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was partly allowed, confirming the appellant's conviction but reducing the substantive sentences of imprisonment and adjusting the fine amount to be paid to the victim's family.
The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.91 of 2012, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichirappalli. He stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. By Judgment dated 31.07.2012, he has been convicted under Sections 376 r/w Section 511 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence under Section 376 r/w Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Sessions Judge has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.85,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and for the offence under Section 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. As against the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-
PW-3 and PW-2 are husband and wife. They were residing at Alagarpuram, Toll Gate, Trichirappalli. PW-1 is their daughter.
During the year 2011, she was hardly aged six years. The accused also belongs to the same village. On 22.05.2011, PW-1 was playing on the street. It is alleged that the accused took PW-1 into his house, removed her dress and inserted his male organ into the female organ of PW-1. Due to pain, PW-1 cried. PW-2 started searching for PW-1, as she was not seen on the street, where she was originally playing. When she went near the house of the accused, she heard PW-1 sobbing from inside the house of the accused. The door was bolted from inside. PW-2 tapped at the door. It was not immediately opened. After sometime, the accused opened the door. PW-2 found PW-1 inside the house of the accused by the side of a wall and she was weeping. PW-2 asked the accused as to why PW-1 was weeping. The accused told her that she had hit against the wall. Believing the same, PW-2 took her to her house.
2.1. Even thereafter, PW-1 did not stop weeping. Therefore, PW-2 further enquired PW-1 as to what had happened to her. By the time, PW-3 had also returned home. In the presence of PW-2 and PW-3, PW-1 told that the accused had inserted his male organ into her female genitalia and he intimidated her not to disclose about the occurrence to anybody. Thereafter, PW-2 went in search of Mrs.Nalini, the sister-in-law of the accused to complain. PW-2 told her about the occurrence. When Mrs.Nalini enquired the accused in the presence of PW-4, the accused apologized for his action. Thereafter, PW-2 took PW-1 and made a complaint to the police. PW-11 was the then Sub-Inspector of Police at Srirengam All Women Police Station. On 22.05.2011, at 11.00 PM, PW-2 made a complaint, [vide EX-P1], upon which PW-11 registered a case in Crime No.26 of 2011, under Sections 376 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. Then, she forwarded EX-P1, the complaint and EX-P10, the First Information Report, to the Court and handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police.
2.2. Taking up the case for investigation, PW-13 went to the place of occurrence, examined PW-1 to PW-5 and recorded their statements. Then, she prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch in the presence of PW-6 and another witness. Then, she forwarded PW-1 to the doctor for medical examination. PW-8, Dr.Sumathi, examined her and found a small abrasion on the outer part of the female genitalia of PW-1. There were no other injuries found anywhere including the thighs. The hymen was found intact. She took smears from the vagina of PW-1 and forwarded the same for chemical examination. PW-9 examined the same and found that there was no semen or spermatozoa found. Based on the same, PW-8 gave opinion that there was no sign of sexual intercourse.
2.3. Continuing the investigation, PW-13 arrested the accused on 23.05.2011, at 11.30 AM. On such arrest, he gave a voluntary
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
