Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1895 (MAD)

Perumal v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police Jalakandapuram Police Station

2012-04-16

C.NAGAPPAN, P.DEVADASS

body2012
Judgment :- P.DEVADASS,J,. 1. The appellant is accused in S.C.No.265 of 2007 on the file of Mahalir Court, Salem. For convenience sake, in this judgment, let us call the appellant as accused. 2. The accused is alleged to have criminally trespassed into the house of complainant Ananthi, a minor girl and raped her. 3. To establish this allegations, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 18, marked Exs.P1 to P14. 4. When the accused has been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating aspects in the prosecution evidence, he had denied his complicity in this case. However, he did not examine any witness nor mark any document. 5. On 29.09.2009, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him as under:- The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed both the sentences to run concurrently. 6. Though this appeal has been directed as against the conviction and sentence, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant confined his arguments only to the sentence aspect and not challenged the conviction recorded by the trial Court. 7. P.W.4 Palanisamy is residing in Arunthathiyar Colony in Thalapatti in Edaiyarpatti Village in Salem District. P.Ws.1 and 6 Ananthi and Shyamala Devi are his daughters. Accused, a married man, is residing next to P.W.1's house. On 22.04.2005, at about 11 a.m., at the Yercard Police Station, P.W.1 Ananthi gave Ex.P1 complaint to P.W.13 Periyanayagam, S.I. of Police that the accused had raped her. P.W.13 registered this case(Ex-P10 F.I.R.). The case has been first investigated into by P.Ws.14 and 15 Manirathnam and Pandurangan, Inspectors and finally by P.W.18, Muniappan, Inspector and he filed the Final Report as against the accused for offences under Section 451 and 376 IPC. 8. In her evidence, P.W.1 had clearly deposed that on a day 7 months prior to her Ex.P1 complaint dated 22.04.2005, at about 2 p.m., the accused came to her house, threatened her and her sister P.W.6 and forcibly had physical intercourse with her and thereafter also he had physical intercourse with her keeping her under duress. She had narrated this in her complainant (Ex.P1). P.W.6 Shyamaladevi had stated that she found her sister weeping. After this incident, P.W.1's menstrual cycle had stopped, she cannot hide any more her pregnancy, in the circumstances, P.W.1 had revealed the entire occurrence to P.W.5 Kandhammal, her father's sister and thereafter Ex.P1 complaint has been lodged by P.W.1 with the police. 9. P.W.6 Shyamaladevi had stated that she found her sister weeping. After this incident, P.W.1's menstrual cycle had stopped, she cannot hide any more her pregnancy, in the circumstances, P.W.1 had revealed the entire occurrence to P.W.5 Kandhammal, her father's sister and thereafter Ex.P1 complaint has been lodged by P.W.1 with the police. 9. The evidence of P.W.12 Baby Moses Mohandoss, School Headmistress and Ex-P9 birth certificate shows that P.W.1 was born on 07.06.1989 and even on the date of complaint, she was below 16 years and during the occurrence time, she was about 15 years old. The evidence on record clearly shows that during the occurrence time, she was a minor girl. The evidence of P.W.16 Dr.Meera and her report Ex.P12 shows that P.W.1 was at an advanced stage of pregnancy. P.W.1 named the accused as the person responsible for her pregnancy. Later, P.W.1 also gave birth to a child. 10. P.W.9 Sendrayan, President, Ediyapatti Panchayat stated that on 26.04.2005, the accused appeared before him and confessed he having raped P.W.1 and since the police is in search of him and if caught by them, they will torture him, he had approached him for his assistance and his this extra-judicial confession (Ex.P7) was recorded by P.W.10 Prakasam, Panchayat Clerk. P.W.10 corroborated P.W.9. Thereafter, with his letter Ex.P8, P.W.9 had produced the accused along with Ex.P7 to police and he was arrested. P.W.9 is not a stranger to the accused. There is every reason for the accused to repose confidence in him to confess to his commission of the offence. The contents of Ex.P7 also stand corroborated by the overwhelming evidence on record. Ex.P7 extra-judicial confession is genuine and voluntary and it is acceptable. 11. The evidence of the victim girl (P.W.1),the medical evidence and Ex.P7 extrajudicial confession of the accused clearly establishes the prosecution case. Further, the accused also not challenged the conviction recorded by the trial Court, which is based on valid evidence, which we have seen elaborately. 12. Thus, the conviction under Section 451 and 376 I.P.C., recorded by the trial Court is not disturbed. 13. Now, we shall pass on to the sentence aspect. The trial Court had awarded him the maximum life sentence provided in Section 376 IPC and also fined him. The accused and the victim girl belongs to the same colony, neighbors, known persons. Thus, the conviction under Section 451 and 376 I.P.C., recorded by the trial Court is not disturbed. 13. Now, we shall pass on to the sentence aspect. The trial Court had awarded him the maximum life sentence provided in Section 376 IPC and also fined him. The accused and the victim girl belongs to the same colony, neighbors, known persons. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this case is not a fit case for imposition of maximum sentence provided in section 376 IPC. However, in the facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that it would suffice, if he is sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment together with fine. 14. In the result, i) The conviction under Section 451 IPC., recorded by the trial Court and the sentence awarded to the appellant for the same are confirmed. ii) The conviction under Section 376 IPC., recorded by the trial Court as against the appellant is confirmed. iii) However, the life sentence awarded to him under Section 376 IPC., is set aside.Instead, he is sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine of Rs.1,000/- awarded to him is sustained. iv) The accused is given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. v) This Criminal Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.