Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. JAYACHANDRAN, SUNDER MOHAN, JJ.
Chiranjeevi – Appellant
Versus
State, through Inspector of Police, All Woman Police Station, Sivagangai – Respondent
Crl. Appeal (MD) Nos. 221, 278 of 2019, 335 of 2020, 542 of 2022, Crl. M.P. (MD) No. 8957 of 2022
Decided On : 27-01-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 294(b), 120B, 304, 366A, 323, 352, 374, 376 (2)(a)(i) and 506(ii) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 374, 374(2), 313, 164, 391 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 – Section 10 r/w 9(g), 6, 5(h), 5(g), 17 - Criminal Appeal - Offence of Gang Rape – Criminal Conspiracy - Whether the offence of gang rape has been established – Held, version of PW-1 as regards involvement of A3 to A5 is highly doubtful - PW-1 for first time had named A4 and A5 during cross examination and she identified A3 to A5 during further chief examination - The lapses in the investigation pointed out earlier coupled with fact of belated naming of the accused and their identification will enure in favour of A3 to A5 - Court hold that A3 to A5 are not guilty of the offences charged against them - Petition partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Sections 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the sentences and conviction in Special Sessions Case No. 10 of 2019, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai, dated 05.04.2019, by allowing this Criminal Appeal.
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Sections 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records from the Lower Court and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai in S.C.No. 10 of 2019 dated 05.04.2019.
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Sections 374 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the entire records connected with the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai in Special Sessions Case No. 10 of 2019 dated 05.04.2019 and set aside the same and consequently acquit the appellant.
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Sections 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code to call for records and set aside the judgment and conviction dated 05.04.2019 in Special S.C.No. 10 of 2019 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (FAC), Mahila Court, Madurai and acquit the appellants and thus render justice.
1. The appellants have preferred the above appeals aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge (Fast Track) FAC, Mahila Court, Madurai in S.C. No. 10 of 2019 dated 5th April 2019.
2. The following chart would indicate the offences for which the appellants were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court:
| S. No. | Criminal Appeal No. | Accused | Convicted for offences | Sentence |
| 1. | 542/2022 | 1. Pandi @ Burma Pandi @ Durai Pandi (A1) | (a) Section 366(A) IPC | 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10000/- and in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment |
| (b) Section 10 r/w Section 9(g) of the POCSO Act | 7 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment | |||
| (c) Section 6 r/w 5(h) and 5(g) of POCSO Act | Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment | |||
| (Section 376 D IPC invoked for sentence) | ||||
| No separate sentence for offence under Section 6 r/w 5(h) of POCSO Act | ||||
| (d) Section 352 IPC | 3 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo two weeks simple imprisonment | |||
| (e) Section 366(A) IPC | 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10000/- and in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment | |||
| 2. | 278/2019 | Prabhakar (A3) | (a) 366(A) IPC | 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment |
| (b) Section 10 r/w Section 9(g) of POCSO Act | 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment | |||
| (c) Section 6 r/w 5(g) of the POCSO Act | 25 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10000/- and in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment. | |||
| (Section 42 of POCSO Act and Section 376 D IPC invoked) | ||||
| 3. | 335/2020 | Sulaiman (A4) | (a) Section 366(A) IPC | 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment |
| (b) Section 10 r/w Section 9(g) of POCSO Act | 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment | |||
| (c) Section 6 r/w Section 5(g) of POCSO Act | 25 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10000/- and in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment | |||
| (Section 42 of POCSO Act and Section 376 D IPC invoked) | ||||
| 4. | 221/2019 | Chiranjeevi (A5) | (a) 366(A) IPC | 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to undergo 6 months |
The court established that corroborative evidence is essential in sexual assault cases, and the absence of such evidence led to the acquittal of one accused and the modification of the sentence for t....
Section 218 provides that separate trials shall be conducted for distinct offences alleged to be committed by a person. Similarly, Under Section 223, a joint trial may be held for persons charged wit....
A conviction for sexual offences against a minor requires reliable, consistent evidence. While the victim's testimony can be sufficient, material improvements or exaggerations regarding the involveme....
Consent in sexual offenses remains a complex issue, impacted by victim's age, circumstances of the case, and the necessity for clarity in procedural applications regarding trial conduct.
There are a number of rooms at the said place and apart from Appellants other employees of relevant Company also resided in the same house at the relevant time, although he had not mentioned their de....
Onus of prosecution cannot be discharged by referring to very strong suspicion and existence of highly suspicious facts to inculpate accused nor falsity of defence could take place of proof which pro....
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
