Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 1467
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Nagamuthu and N. Authinathan, JJ.
Subru @ Subramani - Appellant
Versus
State, rep. by The Inspector of Police, Royakottai Police Station, Krishnagiri District - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 629 of 2016
Decided On : 25-01-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. Shajahan for M/s. S. Bagavathi Raj, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. P. Govindarajan, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 323, 506(ii), 392 read with Section 379, 376(D) -Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act-Section 4 - Gang rape – Survivor – Compensation - Appeal, challenging the conviction and sentences - Accused had the audacity even to go to the extent of video-graphing the rape being committed by them one after the other, by using the cellphone camera belonging to the first accused. They showed the same to P.Ws.1 and 3 and told them that if they disclose about this occurrence to anybody, including the police, they would dare to host the same in Internet and spoil their entire life – Held, accused removed the jewels and the watch, belonging to P.W.1, in the course of the same transaction, in which she was raped. In pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the second accused, the ear studs belonging to P.W.1 were recovered from his possession. The waist guard, belonging to P.W.3, was recovered from him and the Sonata Ladys watch M.O.10 was recovered from the third accused. From the first accused, the covering chain M.O.26, belonging to P.W.1, was recovered. These accused have no explanation to offer in respect of the possession of these properties. This would give rise to a presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that they were the perpetrators of the entire crime - analysis of the entire evidence with full objectivity, though we were filled with emotion and sorrow, on perceiving the horror, the trauma, the depression, the pain and the sufferings of P.Ws.1 and 3, we did not allow ourselves to be swayed away from the objectivity and unbiased analysis of evidences. Our ultimate thorough analysis clearly would land us only in confirming the conviction of the appellant, rightly passed by the trial Court – Appeal dismissed
S. Nagamuthu, J.
A gang rapist - it is alleged - who stands convicted for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 506(ii), 392 read with Section 379 IPC, 376(D) IPC and under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, has come up with this appeal, challenging the conviction and sentences. He is the second accused in S.C. No.30 of 2015, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri. There were three other accused in this case, by name, C. Prakash, I.G. Mani @ Mani and T. Prakash. The trial Court framed as many as eight charges against all the four accused, as detailed below :
SI. No.
Charges (Section of law)
accused
1.
U/s.341 of the Indian Penal Code
A1 to A4
2.
U/s.323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
A1 to A4
3.
U/s.506(ii) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code
A1 to A4
4.
U/s.354 of the Indian Penal Code
A1
5.
U/s.392 IPC read with Section 379 IPC
A1 and A4
6.
U/s.376(D) of the Indian Penal Code
A1 & A4
7.
67(A) Information Technology Act,2000
A1
8.
Sec.4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act
A1 to A4
By judgment dated 15.10.2015, the trial Court convicted all the four accused as detailed below:
| SI. No | Rank of accused | Conviction | sentence |
| 1. | A1 to A4 | U/s. 341 IPC | Simple Imprisonment for one month with a fine of Rs.500/- each. |
| 2. | A1 to A4 | U/s. 323 IPC (A1- 2 counts) | Simple imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- each. |
| 3. | A1 to A4 | U/s. 506(ii) IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.5000/- each. |
| 4. | A1 to A4 | U/s. 392 r/w. Section 379 IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs.5000/- each. |
| 5. | A1 to A4 | 376(D) IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. |
| 6. | A1 to A4 | U/s. 4 of T.N. Prohibition of Women Harassment Act | Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. |
| 7. | A1 | U/s. 354 IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.5000/-. |
| 8. | A1 | U/s. 67(A) of Information Technology Act, 2000 | Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.50,000/-. |
In respect of the other offences, the trial Court has acquitted them. Challenging the said conviction and sentences, the appellant/the second accused alone has come up with this appeal. The other accused have not filed any appeal so far.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
(a) P.W.1, a young girl, hardly aged 20 years and a student, doing final year Under Graduate Course in a local College, is the gang rape survivor (victim). She hails from Krishnagiri District. P.W.2 and P.W.8 are the mother and father, respectively, of the victim. P.W.3, a driver by profession, was her lover. He is a close friend of the sister's husband of P.W.1. Along with the sister's husband of P.W.1, P.W.3 used to visit the house of P.W.1 and that is how love developed between them for quite some time.
(b) On 18.07.2014, P.Ws.1 and 3 had a plan to go to a temple together. P.W.1, under the guise of going to her college, in the morning, left her house in college uniform. As already planned, P.W.3 was waiting in a TATA Indica car, near Royakottai Over Bridge. P.W.1, who travelled in a bus, got down from the bus near the Over Bridge at Royakottai and went along with P.W.3, in the car. P.W.3 drove the car. They went to a hotel, had food and then they started their journey in the same car towards Royakottai. At around 4.00 to 4.30 p.m., the car was passing through a village, known as Podampatti. Since P.W.1 had an urge to pass urine, she requested P.W.3 to stop the car. The car was accordingly stopped at the side of the road.
(c) P.W.1 got down from the car, moved for some distance to secluded place for passing urine.
