IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, V. SIVAGNANAM, JJ.
Kanagaraj - Appellant
Versus
State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Karumathapatti Police Station, Coimbatore - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 764 of 2019
Decided On : 16-02-2021
Criminal Appeal - Rape of Minor Girl - Section 450 IPC, Section 376(1) IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence and legal provisions related to the rape of a minor girl under Section 376(1) IPC, the age determination of the victim, the significance of delay in lodging the FIR, and the sufficiency of evidence from a single witness. The court also considered the principle that delay in lodging the FIR does not necessarily affect the truthfulness of the prosecution case.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the rape of a physically paralysed 13-year-old minor girl by the accused. The victim's evidence, delay in lodging the FIR, and the age determination of the victim were key points of contention.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in lodging the FIR was properly explained and did not affect the truthfulness of the prosecution case. The victim's evidence was considered reliable, and the age determination of the victim was crucial in establishing the offence under Section 376(1) IPC.
Issues: The key issues included the reliability of the victim's evidence, the significance of delay in lodging the FIR, and the age determination of the victim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that delay in lodging the FIR does not necessarily affect the truthfulness of the prosecution case. It also highlighted the sufficiency of evidence from a single witness and the importance of age determination in cases involving minors.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the conviction of the accused under Sections 450 and 376(1) IPC, but reduced the sentence of life imprisonment to 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
JUDGMENT :
V. Sivagnanam, J.
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment dated 21.10.2013 made in Special C.C.No.12 of 2014 on the file of the Sessions Court (Mahila Court) Mahalir Nithimandram, Coimbatore by allowing the present Criminal Appeal.
1. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the judgment and order dated 21.10.2013 passed in C.C.No.12 of 2014 on the file of the Sessions Court (Mahila Court) Mahalir Nithimandram, Coimbatore.
2. The appellant, who was an accused in Special C.C.No.12 of 2014 before the Sessions Court (Mahila Court) Mahalir Nithimandram, Coimbatore, was convicted and sentenced as under:
| Provision under which convicted | Sentence |
| Section 450 IPC | Ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. |
| Section 376(1) IPC | Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. |
The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently. A compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded to the victim girl to be paid by the Government.
3. The facts leading to the filing of this case are as under:
3.2. Tmt.Sarojini, (P.W.17) Sub Inspector of Police, Karumathampatti Police Station received the complaint (Ex.P.1) from (P.W.1) Rangan on 21.08.2012 about 11.30 a.m., and registered case in Crime No.376 of 2012 under Section 376 IPC and registered an FIR (Ex.P.16).
3.3. Thiru. Anandh Arokiaraj (P.W.18) incharge Inspector of Police, Karumathampatti Police Station, at that time received the FIR and took up investigation. He went to the place of occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P5) and rough sketch (Ex.P17) in the presence of witnesses Rangasamy (P.W.8) and Nagaraj (P.W.12). Further (P.W.18) recovered black colour faded middy, white colour half hand shirt and hand kerchief (M.O.1, M.O.2 & M.O.3) under Form 91 and Mahazar (Ex.P.18) and also examined witnesses and forwarded the victim girl for medical examination. Thereafter, he arrested the accused on 21.08.2012 at about 17 hours before Valaipalayam bus stop and examined him and sent him for medical examination. Thereafter, he was remanded to judicial custody.
3.4. Dr.Senthilkumar (P.W.11) examined the accused viz., Kanagaraj with rega
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.