Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. Prakash, V. Sivagnanam, JJ.
State by The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Thudialur - Complainant
Versus
Santhoshkumar - Accused
R.T.No.1 of 2020 and Crl.A.No.119 of 2020
Decided On : 26-04-2021
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5(l), 33(8), and 5(m) read with Section 6 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 366, 374,313, 209 and 310 - Evidence Act - Section 145 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 366, 374 and 302 – Offence of murder – Examination of accused – Minor- Unlawful compulsory labour - Whether there was any public movement - Whether the circumstances so established are consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused - Whether it was seized from the southern side or northern side - Victim is a minor girl, for sake of anonymity, we refer to her appellant hails from Melchithiraichavadi village in Coimbatore and was temporarily residing with his grandmother who was aged about 75 years, in a hut was aged about 7 years and she was residing with her mother Vanitha (P.W.1) and a younger sister aged 5 years, in Door village - House of “X” and house of are in same lane, but diagonally opposite as shown in the rough sketch - Though the two houses are on the opposite rows, yet, both their entrances face east - “X” and her sister Rithikasree were playing in the street and around alone returned home. When replied that “X” was playing in street. Since “X” did not return home came to his shop in the evening for purchasing betel leaf and nut and thereafter, he had not seen them. Since “X” was not found anywhere – Held, Court are satisfied that case does not come within the category of “rarest of rare cases” by applying the principles laid down by Supreme Court in Singh v State of Punjab SCC - It has not been demonstrated to us that appellant was addicted to crime and that he is a menace to society, thereby ruling out any possibility of reformation – Court are unable to persuade ourselves to hold that a sentence lesser than the death penalty is completely foreclosed - Life imprisonment is rule and death sentence is exception sentence of death awarded by trial Court is commuted to imprisonment for life with the rider that the appellant will not be entitled to any statutory remission or commutation until he has completed 25 years of actual imprisonment - We are upholding this direction in exercise of our powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, as, in our considered opinion, a strong prima facie case has been made out to sustain this course of action - That such a direction can be given by High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C - sentence of death is modified to one of imprisonment for life with a rider that appellant shall not be released under any statutory remission or commutation scheme until he has undergone 25 years of actual imprisonment, inasmuch as it is a crime against a hapless minor girl - enquiry by an officer of the rank of Deputy Inspector General with regard to the discrepancies in complaint (Ex.P.1) and the printed F.I.R. (Ex.P.23) and fix the responsibility on the officers concerned and take departmental action against them - An action taken report shall be submitted to Court within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment - police investigation in this country which makes it very easy for a focused defence counsel like Mr.Kingsley Paul Robinson to call the bluff and expose the falsity in prosecution evidence – Court place on record our appreciation to Mr.Kingsley Paul Robinson for his forensic ability as well for his commitment to the cause he had taken knowing full well that his remuneration will be very meager. In fact, we found him rendering able assistance to the counsel before the High Court during all the hearings for which are aware that he would not have been paid any remuneration by the Legal Services Authority - 366 Cr.P.C. are disposed of – Ordered Accordingly
JUDGMENT :
V. SIVAGNANAM, J.
Referred trial (R.T.) No.1 of 2020 is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of POCSO Act Cases, Coimbatore (for brevity “the trial Court”) under Section 366 Cr.P.C., for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the appellant in Spl.C.C. No.76 of 2019. Crl.A.No.119 of 2020 is an appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused challenging his conviction and sentence in Spl.C.C.No.76 of 2019 vide judgment and order dated 27.12.2019.
2. The prosecution story runs thus:
2.1. Since it is a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity "the POCSO Act"), where, the victim is a minor girl, for the sake of anonymity, we refer to her as “X”. The appellant hails from Melchithiraichavadi village in Uliyampalayam, Coimbatore and was temporarily residing with his grandmother Iyyammal, who was aged about 75 years, in a hut in Kasturi Naicken Pudur (for short "K.N. Pudur") in Pannimadai village. “X” was aged about 7 years and she was residing with her mother Vanitha (P.W.1) and a younger sister Rithikasree, aged 5 years, in Door No.2/72, K.N. Pudur, Pannimadai village. The house of “X” and the house of Iyyammal are in the same lane, but diagonally opposite as shown in the rough sketch (Ex.P.38). Though the two houses are on the opposite rows, yet, both their entrances face the east.
2.2. On 25.03.2019, around 05.30 p.m. “X” and her sister Rithikasree were playing in the street and around 06.00 p.m., Rithikasree alone returned home. When Vanitha (P.W.1) asked Rithikasree about “X”, the latter replied that “X” was playing in the street. Since “X” did not return home even after sunset, Vanitha (P.W.1) became anxious. She went to the shop of one Soundarrajan (P.W.2) in the village and made enquiries about "X". Soundarrajan (P.W.2) told her that “X” and Rithikasree came to his shop in the evening for purchasing betel leaf and nut and thereafter, he had not seen them. Since “X” was not found anywhere, Vanitha (P.W.1) went to Thadagam Police Station at 09.00 p.m. to lodge a complaint.
2.3. Boopathy (P.W.21), Sub Inspector of Police, Thadagam Police Station told Vanitha (P.W.1) that the Government has not yet empowered Thadagam Police Station to register cases and therefore, took her to Thudialur Police Station. On a written complaint (Ex.P.1) given by Vanitha (P.W.1), Boopathy (P.W.21), Sub Inspector of Police, registered an F.I.R. in Thudialur P.S. Cr. No.168 of 2019 for “girl missing” at 22.00 hrs. on 25.03.2019 and prepared the printed F.I.R. (Ex.P.23), which reached the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore at 06.00 p.m. on 26.03.2019, as could be seen from the endorsement thereon.
2.4. Investigation of the case in Thudialur P.S.Cr. No.168 of 2019 was taken up by Balamurali Sundaram (P.W.24), Inspector of Police, who, for the sake of convenience, is hereinafter referred to as “the first I.O.”. He went to the house of “X” and prepared an observation Mahazar (Ex.P.4) and a rough sketch (Ex.P.28) in the presence of one Santhanam (not examined) and Sivakumar (P.W.6).
2.5. On 26.03.2019, around 07.00 a.m., one Dhanalakshmi (P.W.4), whose house is also diagonally opposite the house of “X”, saw the body of “X” in a narrow alley behind the house of one Maniammal and raised an alarm. She found “X” covered with a cement colour T-shirt with black stripes (M.O.1). On hearing her hue and cry, villagers gathered there and Vanitha (P.W.1) found “X” unconscious with injuries on her body. Immediately, an ambulance was called for and one Ismail (P.W.5), ambulance driver, took “X” and Vanitha (P.W.1) to Lakshmi Hospital, Thudialur, where Dr.Navaneeth Kumar (P.W.16) examined “X” in the ambulance itself and referred her to the Coimbatore Medical College and Hospital, Coimbatore (for brevity “the CMC Hospital”). Accordingly, “X” was rushed to the CMC Hosp
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
