Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1746
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. KALYANASUNDARAM, T. KRISHNAVALLI, JJ.
Sampoornalingam – Appellant
Versus
State Represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kulithalai – Respondent
Crl. A (MD) No. 529 of 2018 & Crl. MP (MD) No. 4027 of 2020
Decided on : 30-09-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :E. Somasundaram, Advocate.
For the Respondent: M. Chandrasekaran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:
Delay in lodging FIR - Procedural Violations - Inconsistencies in Evidence - [DELAY IN LODGING FIR] - [CRIMINAL APPEAL] - [IPC 448, IPC 376(2)(L), Cr.P.C 154(1)(a), Cr.P.C 164(5-A)] - The court analyzed the delay in lodging the FIR, procedural violations, and inconsistencies in the evidence. It highlighted the amendments to Cr.P.C 154(1)(a) and Cr.P.C 164(5-A) regarding recording statements from mentally or physically disabled individuals in cases of sexual assault. The court found that the delay in lodging the FIR, lack of supporting medical evidence, and procedural violations created doubt over the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for trespass and rape. The prosecution alleged that the accused trespassed into the victim's house and committed rape on a mentally retarded and physically challenged individual. The delay in lodging the FIR, procedural violations, and inconsistencies in the evidence were key points of contention.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in lodging the FIR, lack of supporting medical evidence, and procedural violations created doubt over the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Issues: Delay in lodging FIR, Procedural Violations, Inconsistencies in Evidence
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in lodging the FIR, lack of supporting medical evidence, and procedural violations created doubt over the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted from all charges.
JUDGMENT :
T. Krishnavalli, J.
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karur, in S.C No.03 of 2018, dated 10.07.2018)
1. The Appellant stands convicted in SC No.3 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karur, for the charges under sections 448 and 376(2)(L) IPC and sentenced to suffer one year simple imprisonment for the offence under section 448 IPC and imprisonment of life for the offence under section 376(2)(L) IPC and fine of Rs.1,000/-, which carrying default sentence on the allegation that on 03.11.2016 at 11.30 pm, he trespassed into the house of PW1 and lifted PW15 to a nearby place and committed rape on her.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts necessary to dispose of the appeal are as follows:- PW1 is the mother of PW2, PW8 and PW15 and they were residing at Irumpoothipatti Refugees Camp. It is the evidence of PW1 that on 03.11.2016, she had gone to Madurai and stayed there. The accused knowing this, at 11.30.pm on 03.11.2016 trespassed into her house and took PW15 from the house to the back side of the Madha Church and after closing her mouth, committed rape.
3. It is the further case of the prosecution that PW2 is an employee of KCP Company and at about 11.30 pm on 03.11.2016, she left the company after her days work along with PW3, PW4 and PW7 and when they were nearing Irumpoothipatti Refugees Camp, PW3 heard screaming and informed the same to PW2, PW4 and PW7 and when they went to the back side of the Madha Church, the accused took to his heels. On enquiry, PW15 narrated that when she was at sleep, the accused trespassed into the house and brought her to back side of the Madha Church by his shoulders and committed rape. Then PW15 was brought back to the house and at 12'0 Clock, PW2 informed the incident to her brother Sridharan/PW8, who in-turn informed the same to his mother PW1 through cellphone. PW1 returned from Madurai on 04.11.2016 night to her house and went to Salem to bring the witness Boopathi. Then at 9.00 pm on 05.11.2016, PW1 preferred a complaint Ex.P1 to PW18 the Inspector of Police. On the basis of the complaint Ex.P1, PW18 registered a case in Crime No.7 of 2016 under section 376(2)(L) IPC. Ex.P12 is the printed First Information Report.
4. After registering the case, PW18 sent PW15 through Head Constable PW11 to Karur Government Hospital for examination. PW18 continued with the investigation and proceeded to the place of occurrence by 7.00 pm on 06.11.2016 and prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P4 in the presence of PW5 and one Dinesh and drew a rough sketch Ex.P13. She obtained statement from PW1 to PW5, PW7 and PW8. Then he seized gown MO1, which was worn by the victim at the time of occurrence in the presence of PW4 and one Vedhanayaki. Ex.P3 is a seizure mahazar. PW19 sent the materials objects in Form 91 under Ex.P14 to the Magistrate Court. On the same day, the Inspector obtained statement from PW16, who examined PW15 and obtained statement Ex.P10.
5. PW18 in the course of investigation arrested the accused on 17.11.2016 at 6.30 am in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer PW10 and his Assistant Selvakumar. In pursuance of the arrest, he gave a statement and the admissible portion is Ex.P7 and thereafter, recovered MO2 Lungi and MO3 Shirt under Ex.P8 and sent MO2 and MO3 under Ex.P15 to the Judicial Magistrate in Form 91. To ascertain the IQ of PW15, PW18 gave a requisition to the Chief Medical Officer, Karur Government Hospital. On 19.12.2016, the Inspector of Police sent PW2 to the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Karur for recording statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. On 20.12.2016, PW14/Dr.Suresh Kumar issued a certificate in regard to IQ of PW15. The accused was subjected to potency test. PW6 after conducting the test issued a report under Ex.P6. On completing the investigation, final report was laid against the accused on 06.05.2017 under sections 448 and 376(2)(L)
