The court held that inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and the belated nature of the complaint created reasonable doubt, warranting the benefit of the doubt for the accused.

JUDGMENT :

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him vide judgment dated 30.12.2022 in S.C.No.178 of 2022, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai.

2(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant and the victim are doctors; that during the Covid period they were made to stay in a hotel (Courtyard Marriot Hotel); that the appellant and the victim were staying in adjacent rooms in the same hotel; that the appellant had been following the victim for quite some time; that the appellant sent her messages to her mobile phone continuously stating that he had been wanting to talk to her for a long time; that on 05.08.2021 the victim came to the appellant’s room [Room No.304] and at that time, the appellant is said to have forcibly pushed the victim to the bed, removed her dress and committed rape; that on 21.09.2021, the victim had given a complaint to the Dean, Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, requesting action against the appellant; that thereafter, on 16.11.2021, the appellant is said to have threatened the victim of dire consequences, if she did not withdraw her allegations against the appellant; that the victim had lodged a complaint to the police on 17.11.2021 which was registered in Cr.No.7 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 376 and 506(i) of the IPC later, altered to Sections 354B, 354D and 376 of the IPC.

(ii) The complaint was registered by PW8, the investigating officer who examined the witnesses, took steps to record the 164 Cr.P.C., statement of the victim-PW1 by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and after obtaining the certificate of Medico-Legal Examination certificate of the appellant, filed a final report on 10.03.2022 before the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, against the appellant for the offences under Sections 354B, 354D and 376 of the IPC.

(iii) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with, and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.178 of 2022 and was made over to the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai, for trial. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 376 (1) and 506(i) of the IPC against the accused and when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty'.

(iv) To prove the case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. When the accused was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. On the side of defence, though no one was examined, the refusal letter dated 29.11.2021 from PW1 for medical examination, was marked as Ex.D1.

(v) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt and held the appellant/accused guilty of offences under Section 376 (1) of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The trial Court however found that the offence under Section 506(i) of the IPC was not established and acquitted the appellant. Hence, the appeal.

3. Heard, Mr.A.Ramesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/Accused, and Dr.C.E.Pratap, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), appearing for the respondent/State.

4 (i) Mr.A.Ramesh, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the allegation of rape is an afterthought; that though the incident took place on 05.08.2021, the FIR was lodged belatedly on 17.11.2021; that earlier, the defacto complainant had given a complaint to the Dean on 21.09.2021, in which there is no allegation of rape and that there is only an allegation of sexual harassment; that the victi