BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
Karuppachamy S/o.Aandi - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.A.(MD) No.835 of 2022
Decided on : 22-12-2023
CRIMINAL LAW - RAPE AND TRESPASS - IPC SECTIONS 450, 376(2)(l), 376(2)(m); Cr.P.C. SECTION 428 - The court discussed the provisions of IPC Sections 450 and 376(2)(l) and (m), emphasizing the definitions and penalties associated with rape, particularly concerning mentally challenged victims. The court clarified that the accused's actions fell under Section 376(2)(l) due to the victim's mental disability, leading to a modification of the conviction from Section 376(2)(m) to 376(2)(l) and adjusting the sentence accordingly.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for trespassing and raping a mentally challenged victim in her home. The incident occurred on August 24, 2017, when the victim was left in the care of her aunt. The accused was apprehended after the victim's cousin raised an alarm during the act. A complaint was filed later that day, leading to the accused's arrest and subsequent trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence presented by the prosecution credible, particularly the testimony of the victim's cousin, who witnessed the crime. The court ruled that the delay in filing the FIR was satisfactorily explained and did not undermine the prosecution's case. The medical evidence corroborated the occurrence of rape, and the victim's mental condition was established.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused trespassed and committed rape on the victim. 2. Whether the offence falls under Section 376(2)(m) or Section 376(2)(l) of IPC. 3. Whether there are grounds to interfere with the Trial Court's judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused's actions constituted rape under Section 376(2)(l) due to the victim's mental disability, which invalidated any potential consent. The court emphasized that the delay in reporting the crime does not negate the validity of the prosecution's case in rape cases, provided satisfactory explanations are given.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed. The conviction under Section 450 of IPC was upheld, while the conviction under Section 376(2)(m) was modified to Section 376(2)(l), with a revised sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000, with the period already served set off against the new sentence.
JUDGMENT :
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the 'appellant/ accused' [henceforth 'accused' for the sake of brevity] assailing the 'Judgment dated February 25th, 2022' [henceforth 'impugned Judgment' for the sake of clarity] passed by 'The Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram' [henceforth 'Trial Court' for the sake of brevity] in Sessions Case No.32 of 2018 in which the accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376(2)(m) of 'The Indian Penal Code' 1860 (Act No.45 of 1860) [henceforth 'IPC' for the sake of brevity] and sentenced as follows:
| Offence u/s. | Sentence |
| Section 450 of IPC | To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of 1 year. |
| Section 376(2)(m) of IPC | To undergo Imprisonment for Life i.e., for remainder of the accused’s natural life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of 2 years. |
| Note: The period of imprisonment already undergone was ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Act No.2 of 1974) [henceforth 'Cr.P.C.' for the sake of brevity]. | |
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
2.1. P.W.1 resides in Pamban Chinnappalam along with her husband, son, daughter, sister and sister’s daughter. Her daughter namely, X (name masked for the sake of privacy) is the victim in this case [henceforth 'victim' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Victim is mentally challenged. P.W.1 and her husband are engaged in fishing avocation due to which they would leave their house early in the morning, leaving victim in the care and custody of victim’s aunt (P.W.1’s sister). The sole accused in this case is also residing in Pamban Chinnappalam.
2.2. On August 24th, 2017, P.W.1 and her husband left the house at 05.00 hours in the morning, leaving victim along with victim’s aunt (P.W. 1’s sister) and victim’s cousin (P.W.1’s sister’s daughter). At about 09.00 hours on the aforementioned date, victim’s aunt left the house to Government Hospital to buy medicines while, victim’s cousin was in the kitchen at the back of the house. At that time, the accused trespassed into victim’s house, disrobed victim and forcibly raped her. Upon witnessing the accused committing rape upon victim, victim’s cousin raised alarm. Upon hearing this, neighbours and people in the vicinity rushed to the scene of occurrence and the accused ran away.
2.3. Upon learning the said incident from victim’s aunt, P.W.1 lodged a Written Complaint at All Women Police Station, Rameshwaram on the aforementioned date at 15.00 hours. Pursuant to the complaint, Investigating Officer (P.W.18) registered an FIR (Ex.P.10) in Crime No. 5/2017 under Sections 450 and 376(2)(m) of IPC. Then she went to the scene of occurrence at 16.00 hours on the same day and prepared Rough Sketch (Ex.P.12) and Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.11) in the presence of the witnesses Karupasamy (P.W.15) and Praveen (P.W.16). Then she examined the witnesses to the incident and recorded their Statements. Then at 18.30 hours, she arrested the accused at Pamban Bus Stop and recorded the Voluntary Confession given by him in the presence of witnesses Ibrahim Shaw (P.W.5) and Nambuvel (P.W.8). Then she sent the accused to judicial custody. Then she sent a requisition to the Court and sent the accused for medical examination along with Chandrasekar (P.W.6) and Saravanan (P.W.9). Then she sent the victim for medical examination along with police personnels namely, Geetha (P.W.10) and Chithra (P.W.14). Thereafter, Investigating Officer (P.W.18) got transferred and Investigating officer (P.W.19) took over the case.
2.4. Investigating Officer (P.W.19) examined the medical and forensic witnesses in this case. After completion of investigation, she laid Final Report against the accused before
Consent given by a mentally unsound person is invalid in law, and the delay in lodging an FIR in rape cases does not automatically undermine the prosecution's case if satisfactorily explained.
The court emphasized the necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt and recognized that inconsistencies in testimony and procedural flaws led to the acquittal of the appellant.
In a case of rape, conviction can be sustained basing on solitary testimony of prosecutrix – No undue leniency can be shown towards accused.
The court upheld the conviction of the accused for the offence of rape under Sec. 376(2)(f) IPC, emphasizing the reliability of the victim's testimony and the corroboration from medical evidence.
The court emphasized that prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in testimonies and lack of medical evidence prohibited sustaining the conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and corroborated testimony, along with the importance of medical evidence and the need to explain delays in lodging FI....
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.