IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, A.A. NAKKIRAN, JJ.
Pastor Muniyandi @ Ramesh & Others - Appellant
Versus
State represented by the Inspector of Police, Gobichettipalayam Police Station, Erode - Respondent
Crl.A. Nos. 130 of 2018, 190 & 506 of 2019 & Crl.M.P. No. 3169 of 2018
Decided On : 21-03-2022
Kidnapping - Minor - IPC 366, PCM Act 9, POCSO Act 5, 6, 10, 17
Fact of the Case:
The accused kidnapped a minor girl from her school, married her, and committed sexual assault. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused, and they appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The prosecution proved the kidnapping and marriage beyond doubt. The court found the accused guilty and reduced their life imprisonment sentences to fixed terms.
Issues: Kidnapping, Marriage, Sexual Assault, Age of Consent, Abetment
Ratio Decidendi: Consent has no relevance in cases involving minors. The accused's belief in the victim's age is not a defense. Providing asylum and facilitating the commission of an offense constitute abetment under the POCSO Act.
Final Decision: The convictions were upheld, and the life imprisonment sentences were reduced to fixed terms for the accused.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 06.11.2017 passed in Special S.C.No.11 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode and to set aside the same.)
Common Judgment
P.N. Prakash, J.
1. These criminal appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 06.11.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode in Special S.C.No.11 of 2017.
2. The prosecution story runs thus:
2.1 The victim girl “X” (P.W.2) (name not divulged for the sake of anonymity) is the daughter of one Kannamal and at the time of occurrence, she was studying in X standard in Government Higher Secondary School at Mill Medu, Ukkaram. “X” (P.W.2) was residing with her grandmother Mani (P.W.1) in Door No.12/398, Periyar Nagar East, Ukkaram and was going to school from there.
2.2. Vijayakumar (A-1) was already a married man with two children and he (A-1) is the brother of Vasanthakumari (P.W.11), who was a neighbour of Mani (P.W.1). Vijayakumar (A-1) was from Kanniyakumari District and used to frequently visit his sister Vasanthakumari (P.W.11) in Ukkaram. Whenever Vijayakumar (A-1) came there, he (A-1) used to speak to “X” (PW2) and thereby, he (A1) got acquainted with her (P.W.2).
2.3. Vijayakumar (A-1) proposed to “X” (P.W.2) and stated that he was madly in love with her and wanted to marry her as his wife and children had deserted him. “X” (P.W.2) fell for the sweet words of Vijayakumar (A-1). Once, while Vijayakumar (A-1) and “X” (P.W.2) were intimately speaking, they were spotted by Mani (P.W.1) and “X” (P.W.2) was chastised and upbraided. On coming to know of this, Vijayakumar (A-1) suggested to “X” (P.W.2) that unless they go away and get married, they would face trouble frequently from their family members. Therefore, he (A-1) suggested to “X” (P.W.2) that, on a particular day, he would come in his motorcycle and together, they could elope and get married.
2.4. Accordingly, on 23.08.2016, “X” (P.W.2) came out of her school around 4.30 p.m. and her grandmother Mani (P.W.1) came to fetch her home. At that time, Vijayakumar (A-1) came in a motorcycle and asked “X” (P.W.2) to get on to it. Right in the presence of Mani (P.W.1), “X” (P.W.2) got on to the motorcycle of Vijayakumar (A-1) and they fled.
2.5. Vijayakumar (A-1) took “X” (P.W.2) to the house of Joseph Raja (A-3) in Sulur and thereafter, he (A-1) took her to the house of Pastor Muniyandi @ Ramesh (A-2) in Gudalur. Joseph Raja (A-3) also came by bus to the house of Pastor Muniyandi @ Ramesh (A-2) and there, in the presence of Pastor Muniyandi @ Ramesh (A-2) and Joseph Raja (A-3), Vijayakumar (A-1) married “X” (P.W.2) by tying a “thaali”around her neck and had sex with her that night and thereafter, for several days. Since accommodation in Gudalur was not satisfactory, Vijayakumar (A-1) brought “X” (P.W.2) to the house of Palanisamy (P.W.5) in Sulur and tooka portion on rent sometime during September 2016 and stayed with her.
2.6. While all these were happening in the life of “X” (P.W.2) after she fled with Vijayakumar (A-1), Mani (P.W.1) gave a written complaint (Ex.P1) to the Inspector of Police, Kadathur Police Station, narrating the events up to kidnapping of “X” (P.W.2) by Vijayakumar (A-1) from the school and requested the police to secure her.
2.7. On the written complaint (Ex.P1), Palanisamy (P.W.20), Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadathur Police Station, registered a case in Kadathur Police Station Crime No.209 of 2016 under Section 366 IPC on 25.08.2016 at 13.30 hours and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P21), which reached the jurisdictional Court on 29.08.2016 at 10.00 a.m., as could be seen from the endorsement thereon.
2.8. The initial investigation was taken over by Akbar Khan (P.W.21), Inspector of Police, Kadathur Police Station, who went to the place of occurrence and prepared the obser
Consent is irrelevant in cases involving minors, and belief in the victim's age is not a defense. Providing asylum and facilitating the commission of an offense constitute abetment under the POCSO Ac....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on documentary evidence, such as the victim's school certificate, and the testimony of the victim to determine the accused's guilt und....
Rape – Consent of minor has no legal sanctity.
The court affirmed that evidence from birth certificates and credible witness testimonies sufficiently established the victim's age and the occurrence of penetrative sexual assault, meeting the prose....
The reliability of the victim's testimony and the presumption under section 29 of the POCSO Act were crucial in establishing the accused's guilt.
The court emphasized the necessity of proper age determination procedures under the Juvenile Justice Act, concluding that the prosecution failed to establish the victim's age as under 18, leading to ....
Conviction under IPC 363, 376 and POCSO Section 4 upheld for enticing minor (under 18) by suicide threat and penetrative sexual assault; consent immaterial; victim's corroborated testimony and medica....
Point of Law : Taking into consideration of these aspects on evidence and in absence of any documentary evidence, it can safely be said that on the date of alleged occurrence, the victim girl (PW-2) ....
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.