BAIL SLIP

The Appellant/Accused Barnabas son of Ravishankar

Samuel aged 27 years in Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2012 was

directed to be released on bail as per order of this Court dated

07.03.2012 and made in MP.1 of 2012 in Crl.A. 164 of 2012.

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.03.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

Criminal Appeal No.164 of 2012

Barnabas

...

Appellant /1^st Accused

Vs

The State of Tamil Nadu,

rep. by the Inspector of Police,

K1, Sembium Police Station,

Chennai

(Crime No.776/2008)

...

Respondent/Complainant

Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure against the judgment dated 10.12.2012 made in

S.C.No.137 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahalir

Neethimandram, Chennai.

For Appellant :

Mr.C.V.Kumar

for M/s.D.Daniel Ambrose

For Respondent :

Ms.T.P.Savitha

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

JUDGMENT

This appeal arises out of the judgment in S.C.No.137 of

2010 dated 10.2.2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge,

Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai, convicting the appellant/1^st

accused under Section 417 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year

rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to

undergo one month simple imprisonment.

2. Before the learned Sessions Court, there were three

accused. The appellant herein was arrayed as 1^st accused and his

parents were arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3. The learned

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

Sessions Court acquitted the 2^nd and 3^rd accused from the offences

and convicted the appellant under Section 417 IPC and sentenced

him as aforesaid.

3. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

The complainant and the appellant/1^st accused loved each

other and the 1^st accused had taken the complainant to park and

beach from 2004 to 2006. The fact of loving each other was

known to the parents and at one stage, the elders of both the

families arranged for their betrothal on 27.1.2007. After

betrothal, the 1^st accused used to take the complainant to his

house. While so, on 17.6.2007, the 1^st accused took the

complainant to his house when nobody was in his house and taking

advantage of the absence of parents, he offered cool drinks by

mixing alcohol. When the complainant felt drowsy, without her

consent, the 1^st accused had forcibly raped her. After an hour

when the complainant got her consciousness, she found her

clothes were removed and when she questioned, the 1^st accused

informed that as they were engaged. In any way, they were going

to get married and so there was no problem.

3.1. Thereafter, the 1^st accused behaviour was indifferent

and started avoiding complainant. However, in the month of

September, 2007, elders decided to solemnize their marriage and

accordingly the marriage was fixed in December 2007. The 1^st

accused family demanded 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments, bike

and house hold articles at the time of marriage. In October,

2007, the 1^st accused family came to the complainant's house and

demanded jewels, bike and house hold articles and asked the

bride family to bear the marriage expenses. Unable to bear, a

complaint was lodged with K5 All Women Police Station and the

police advised them to go for compromise.

3.2. On 27.1.2008, the 1^st accused promised to marry the

complainant and he was in touch with her. Later since the

complainant felt giddy and stomach pain, parents of the

complainant took her to hospital and found that she was

pregnant. When the complainant was questioned by per parents,

she informed that the 1^st accused had sexual intercourse with her

without her knowledge. Since the 1^st accused threatened her not

to inform to others, and if she informs, he threatened that he

will not marry her and he would commit suicide, she has not

informed the sexual intercourse by the 1^st accused. When the

pregnancy was info