Consent given by a woman who is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that consent due to intoxication is not considered actual consent and constitutes the offence of rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.

BAIL SLIP

The Appellant/ Accused namely Nagadoss S/o. Balaraman was

directed to be released on bail by order of this Court

05/03/2014 made in MP No.1/2014 in Crl.A.No.104/2014.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON

: 27.09.2021

PRONOUNCED ON : 12.01.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

Crl.A.No.104 of 2014

(Through Video Conferencing)

Nagadoss

...Appellant/Accused

Vs

The State, by the Inspector of Police,

All Women Police Station, Gummidipoondi

Tiruvallur District.

...Respondent/Complainant

Prayer:- This Criminal Appeal is filed, under Section 374 of

Cr.PC, to set aside the judgement of conviction and sentence,

dated 22.01.2014, made in SC.No.472 of 2005, by the Sessions

Judge, Magalir Needhi Mandram, Tiruvallur.

For Appellant

: Mr.S.N.Arunkumar

For Respondent

: Mr.J.C.Durairaj,

Government Advocate

JUDGEMENT

1.This Criminal Appeal is filed, against the judgement of

conviction and sentence, dated 22.01.2014, made in SC.No.472

of 2005, by the Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhi Mandram,

Tiruvallur, thereby convicting and sentencing the

Appellant/Accused, for the offence under Section 376 of IPC

to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a

fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo one year

Rigorous Imprisonment and for the offence under Section

506(ii) of IPC to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment

and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo six

months Rigorous Imprisonment and ordering the sentences to

run concurrently.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The case of the Prosecution has arisen on the basis of Ex.P1

complaint given by the victim, PW.1, Jeeva, alleging that on

04.09.2002 at 12.00 noon at Sompattu Colony Anna Nagar,

Appellant/Accused, with an intention to rape the victim,

when she was not well, gave tablet to her, stating that her

father gave some tablets for her illness and after consuming

the tablet, she became unconscious and at that stage, the

accused raped her without her consent and that on 15.01.2003

at 5.00 p.m. when PW.1 told him about her pregnancy and

asked him to marry her, he threatened her at the knife

point, stating that he will murder her and her family.

Hence, the Appellant/Accused was charge sheeted for the

offences punishable under Sections 376 of IPC and 506(ii) of

IPC.

3.The case was taken on file in SC.No.472 of 2005 by the

Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhi Mandram, Tiruvallur and

necessary charges were framed. The accused had denied the

charges and sought for trial. In order to prove the charges

against the accused, the Prosecution had examined PW.1 to

PW.9 and also marked Exs.P1 to P5. On completion of the

evidence on the side of the Prosecution, the accused was

questioned under Section 313 of Cr.PC as to the

incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the

Prosecution witnesses and the accused had come with the

version of total denial and stated that he had been falsely

implicated in this case. The court below, after hearing the

arguments advanced on either side and also looking into the

materials available on record, found the Appellant/Accused

guilty and awarded punishments, as referred to above, by the

impugned judgement, which is challenged in this Criminal

Appeal.

4.This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on

either side.

5.The learned counsel for the Appellant has assailed the

impugned judgement of conviction and sentence, on the

infirmities and discrepancies in the case of the Prosecution

that since PW.1, having intimidate relationship with the

appellant, she became pregnant and as such, the occurrence

was not occurred as stated by her and that there are also

discrepancies as to when the victim regained consciousness,

inasmuch as PW.1 has stated that she gained conscious only

on the next day, whereas she stated bef