Crl.A.No.648 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on :12.10.2022

Pronounced on

: 27.10.2022

Coram:

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Criminal Appeal No.648 of 2014

David Inbaraj

.. Appellant

/versus/

State, Rep. by Inspector of Police,

S-11, Tambaram Police Station,

Tambaram,Chennai 600 045.

Crime No.772/2013

.. Respondent

Prayer:- Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., and order

IV of the Madras High Court A.S Rules, to call for the records and to allow the

appeal by setting aside the judgment of the Hon'ble Judge, Mahila Court,

Chengalpattu in Spl.Case.No.10/2014 on 19.11.2014 and to set aside the conviction

and sentence imposed on the accused.

For Appellant

: Mr.T.R.Ravi

Page No.1/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.648 of 2014

For Respondent

: Mr.R.Kishore Kumar,

Government Advocate, (Crl.Side)

J U D G M E N T

The appellant herein is the sole accused. During the year 2013, while

the accused was serving as a Pastor in the local church, P.W-2, a minor at that time

used to attend the Church since her family members belong to the said church.

Taking advantage of his position as Pastor, the accused allured and enticed P.W-2

with gifts and promise of luxury life and kidnapped her on 16/04/2013 from the

lawful custody of her parents with an intention to exploit her sexually. He took her

to various places like Siliguri, Nagaland and Hosur and under threat and force, had

sexual intercourse with P.W-2 on several occasions for nearly 7 months. On the

complaint of P.W-1, who is the father of the victim girl and by P.W-3, who is the

wife of the accused, police traced the accused and P.W-2 at a lodge in Hosur and

later, secured on 14/12/2013. He was tried for committing offences punishable

under section 363 I.P.C and Section 4 of POCSO Act.

2. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence, held the accused

Page No.2/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.648 of 2014

guilty and sentenced him to undergo 10 years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in

default 1 year R.I for offence under Section 4 of POCSO Act. Sentenced him to

undergo 5 years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- in default 6 months R.I for offence

under Section 363 I.P.C. The term of imprisonment was ordered to run

concurrently. The period of imprisonment undergone pending trial ordered to set off

under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

3. The appeal is directed against the above judgement of conviction

and sentence on the ground that the trial Court erred in convicting the accused based

on the erroneous premises that P.W-2 was a minor girl at the time of occurrence and

she was forcible taken away from the custody of her parents. Also the trial Court

erred in holding that P.W-2 was subjected to forcible intercourse under threat.

4. The Learned Counsel for the appellant raising doubt about the

genuineness of Ex.P-2, the birth certificate which was not part of the documents

filed along with the final report but introduced at the time of examination of

witnesses without any explanation for not producing it along with the final report

Page No.3/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.648 of 2014

contended that, Ex.P-2 is a fabricated document. Without ascertaining the age of

P.W-2, the prosecution proceeded with an erroneous assumption that P.W-2 is a

minor. Later, after commencement of examination of witnesses, realising the fatal

omission, Ex.P-2 the birth certificate was produced by the Public Prosecutor with a

memo stating that the Investigating Officer, due to inadvertence omitted to file the

birth certificate. In fact, how the birth certificate came into possession, itself not

proved and none of the prosecution neither the defacto complainant P.W-1 through

whom it was marked nor the Investigating Officers' P.W-9 and P.W-10 had deposed

about how and when the birth certificate Ex.P-2 was obtained. The Trial Court has

come to an erron