Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1964
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.
Govindan and Others – Appellants
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl. Appeal Nos. 672, 779 of 2010
Decided On : 20-06-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R.C. Paul Kanagaraj.
For the Respondent: K. Prabakar.
Headnote:
SC/ST Act – Indian Penal Code - Section 506/376 - convicting and sentencing - Rigorous Imprisonment - cancelled and the fine amount - evidence on record - case of the Prosecution has arisen, on the basis of the complaint, Ex. P1, dated 14.09.2006, given victim/Kanagarani/Prosecutrix/PW-1, aged about 36 years, belongs to Hindu Adidravidar Community and residing at Perani Railway Colony, alleging that on 12.09.2006 at about 20.00 hours, she was returning to her village in a bus after her work and since she slept, she missed her stop and she got down at Periya Thatchur Bus Stop and was waiting to board another bus to go to her village, viz. Perani Railway Gate Colony and that at that time, the Appellant/A1, who came in a motorcycle, had asked the victim to come with him as he was also going to the same Village and that when the victim refused to go with him – Held, As stated above, this Court finds that there are inherent infirmities in the evidence of PW-1 and the circumstances surrounding it. It is artificial and unimaginable that an able-bodied women was forcibly taken in a motorcycle through a road along a Village consisting of several houses and thereafter, being taken to a place under threat and repeatedly being raped by the accused against her will, thereby improbabilising the case of the Prosecution - Further, the medical evidence, the attendant facts and circumstances of the case also belies the allegation of rape. The version of the Prosecutrix is improbable and it is difficult to accept the same on its face value, which completely lacks corroboration on material particulars, regarding the incident. Having carefully scrutinized the evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the Prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and consequently, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt and thereby entitled to acquittal from the charges alleged against them - It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are involved. It must, further, be borne in mind that the broad principle is that an injured witness was present at the time when the incident happened and that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration - aforesaid judgments lay down the basic principle that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be believed, more so as her statement has to be evaluated on a par with that of an injured witness and if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid observations must carry the greatest weight and we respectfully agree with them, but at the same time they cannot be universally and mechanically applied to the facts of every case of sexual assault which comes before the court - Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.
1. These Criminal Appeals are filed, against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 05.10.2010, made in SC No. 243/2007, by the learned Special Judge, Principal Sessions Court, Villupuram, (a) acquitting the Appellants/A2 and A1 for the offences under Section 506(2) of IPC read with 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (b) convicting and sentencing the Appellant/A1 for the offence under Section 376 of IPC to undergo ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each, in default, to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and (c) convicting and sentencing the Appellant/A2 for the offence under Sections 376 of IPC read with read with 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, to undergo ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default, to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment.
2. The case of the Prosecution has arisen, on the basis of the complaint, Ex. P1, dated 14.09.2006, given by the victim/Kanagarani/Prosecutrix/PW-1, aged about 36 years, belongs to Hindu Adidravidar Community and residing at Perani Railway Colony, alleging that on 12.09.2006 at about 20.00 hours, she was returning to her village in a bus after her work and since she slept, she missed her stop and she got down at Periya Thatchur Bus Stop and was waiting to board another bus to go to her village, viz. Perani Railway Gate Colony and that at that time, the Appellant/A1, who came in a motorcycle, had asked the victim to come with him as he was also going to the same Village and that when the victim refused to go with him, the Appellant/A1 forcibly made her to sit behind him in the motorcycle and was riding the motorcycle towards their village. It is further alleged in the complaint, Ex. P1 that at that time, the Appellant/A2 was coming in a motorcycle, behind them and that the Appellant/Al stopped the motorcycle near the land of Kawukannan and forcibly made the victim to get down at that place and the Appellant/A2 also got down at that time and that both the Appellants/A1 and A2 took her to a field and forcibly committed the offence of rape on her, against her will and also criminally intimidated her not to disclose the same to anybody. The Respondent, after investigation, had filed the final report against the Appellant/Al for the offence under Sections 376 and 506(h) of IPC and against the Appellant/A2 for the offence Sections 376, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3. The case was taken on file in PRC No. 10/2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Tindivanam and subsequently, the case was made over to the Court of Special Judge, Principal Sessions Court, Villupuram, in SC No. 243/2007 and necessary charges were framed. The accused had denied the charges and sought for trial. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-9 and also marked Exs. P1 to P8. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on the side of the defence.
4. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the accused have come with the version of total denial and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case, due to political enmity on the instigation of their rivals.
5. The court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also looking into the materials available on record, found the accused/appellants guilty and awarded punishments, as referred to above, which is challenged in these Criminal Appeals.
6. This court heard the learned counsel on either side.
7. The learned counsel for the Appellants has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, on the following infirmities and grounds:-
(a) The evidence of PW-1, Prosecutrix does not inspire confidence at all, as there are gl
