SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 541

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :B. Kumarasamy, Advocate.
For the Respondent: K. Prabhakar, Additional Public Prosecutor.

The sufficiency of evidence from a single witness and the principle that delay in lodging the FIR does not necessarily affect the truthfulness of the prosecution case were central legal points established in the judgment.

Headnote:

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:

    3.1. The case of the prosecution is that the victim (prosecutrix) is a 13 year old minor girl who was paralysed by polio and could not stand or walk without support. The victim girl is residing at Harijana Colony, Kittampalayam Panchayat, Karumathampatty, along with her father Viz., Rangan and mother viz., Valliammal. On 20.08.2012, her mother’s paternal uncle died who was residing in the same street, just ten houses beside the victim’s house. All the three persons attended the death ceremony. At that time, the victim was hungry and wanted to take some food and so, she went to her house alone. About 4.00 p.m., while she was watching TV the accused known to the victim and her family persons came into the house and asked the TVS 50 key to go to Karumathampatty and so the victim went into the room to take the TVS 50 key. The accused followed her and locked the door and thereafter, raped her. The victim attempted to shout but the accused placed a cloth and closed her mouth with one hand and she was not able to make any sound. Further, she being a polio attacked paralysis person, was unable to resist the accused from committing the crime. Shortly, the victim’s mother viz., Valliammal entered into the house, and found that her daughter was raped by the accused. The accused immediately prostrated at her feet pleaded to excuse him. Then, he ran away from the house. Then the victim’s mother informed her husband. After the completion of death ceremony of victim’s grandfather, on the next day, her father viz., Rangan (P.W.1) gave the complaint before the Karumathampatti police (Ex.P.1).

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

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top