JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records connected to the judgment in S.C.No.89 of 1995, on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, dated 20.11.1996, and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant.) 1. The appeal is filed by the sole accused, who was found guilty by the trial Court of the charge under Sections 376 and 302 of I.P.C. 2. The trial Court sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. The period of sentence was ordered to run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 24.01.1994 at 12.00 a.m. near Mottai Dam, Kuttisamy Field, 8 Kilometers away from Sengottai, the appellant herein carried the deceased Nagoor Meeral to a secluded place, removed her dress and raped her. Further, he pushed her on the stone causing head injury leading to her death. Mymoon Beevi [P.W.1], who was present along with the deceased, Ismail Beevi and Fathima [P.W.2], collecting firewood in the forest, gave a complaint to the Sengottai Police on the next day at 08.00 hours, stating that when she along with Ismail Beevi, Fathima and Nagoor Meeral [deceased] after collecting firewood near Mottai Dam area, started climbing down. Near Kuttisamy Field, they unloaded the firewood and took some rest. At that time, the accused came there and helped them to lift the fire woods to their head. Firstly, he lifted the firewood load to the de-facto complainant [P.W.1] and then, to Ismail Beevi and thereafter to Fathima [P.W.2]. When they were coming down, they heard murmur sound from behind and saw the accused gaged her mouth and carrying the deceased Nagoor Meeral towards Murukkodai. She and other two ladies saw the accused removing the Saree of Nagoor Meeral tore her blouse and forcibly raped her. Nagoor Meeral raised alarm. Fearing danger, she [P.W.1] and others climb down and informed about the incident to one Mariappan [P.W.3], who was grazing the cattle and another person and they all went to Murukkodai and saw Nagoor Meeral lying naked and blood oozing from her private part. They saw injury on her face and breast. They asked one Raikon [P.W.4] to inform the Villagers and the son of Nagoor Meeral. They saw injury on her face and breast. They asked one Raikon [P.W.4] to inform the Villagers and the son of Nagoor Meeral. Nagoor Meeral's son and others came to the spot and took her to Sengottai Hospital. Based on the above statement of Mymoon Beevi, a case was registered by the respondent Police in Crime No.62 of 1994 under Section 376 of I.P.C. on 25.01.1994 at 08.00 hours and investigation has been conducted. 3.1. Meanwhile, Nagoor Meeral who was taken to Sengottai Hospital on 24.01.1994 at 07.45 p.m. and was examined by the duty Doctor. The doctor found severe injury in her private part and referred her to Tenkasi Government Hospital. At Tenkasi Government Hospital, after examining her clinically, the Doctor referred her to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital for further treatment. 3.2. The Police, who registered the case based on the complaint given by Mymoon Beevi [P.W.1], proceeded with investigation, prepared Observation Mahazar [Ex.P.3], Rough Sketch [Ex.P.12] and recovered blood stained clothes and stone, slippers of the deceased and other incriminating materials found at the scene of occurrence under the Mahazar. 3.3. On 28.01.1994 at 06.30 a.m., the accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Nagoor Meeral died on 01.02.1994 at the Hospital succumbing to the injuries. Hence, the case was altered to the offence under Sections 376 and 302 of I.P.C. On completion of investigation, a final report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate who in turn committed it to the Court of Session, the offence being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. After serving documents relied by the prosecution, charges were framed against the accused under Sections 376 and 302 of I.P.C., for rape and murder of the deceased Nagoor Meeral. 4. The accused denied the charges and pleaded innocence. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses, marked 17 Exhibits and 7 Material Objects. 5. The trial Court, accepting the prosecution witnesses, found the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. 6. The said judgment of conviction and sentence is challenged by the appellant/accused for the following among other grounds:- (a) P.W.1 and P.W.2 could not have been as eyewitnesses, because they did not take any steps to rescue the deceased from the alleged offence. The said judgment of conviction and sentence is challenged by the appellant/accused for the following among other grounds:- (a) P.W.1 and P.W.2 could not have been as eyewitnesses, because they did not take any steps to rescue the deceased from the alleged offence. (b) The learned II Additional Sessions Judge ought to have considered that the alleged occurrence took place on 24.01.1994 at 12.00 a.m., but the deceased was admitted in Sengottai Government Hospital on 24.01.1994 at 07.40 p.m., then, she was taken to Tenkasi Government Hospital on 24.01.1994 at 10.00 p.m. and further she was taken to Tirunelveli Government Hospital for giving better treatment and after 8 days from the date of occurrence, she died in Hospital on 01.02.1994 at 02.30 p.m. (c) The medical evidence did not support the prosecution case as per the evidence of P.W.9. (d) As per evidence of P.W.5, he has seen the accused with Aruval, but it was not recovered. (e) The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case only on suspicion and trial Court also convicted him on suspicion without any clear evidence. (f) There is contradiction between the eyewitnesses and the medical evidence. (g) The evidence produced by the prosecution does not anyway establish the guilt of the accused. (h) The prosecution failed to establish the case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant at the outset would submit that the appellant herein, who was 26 years at the time of occurrence, was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, in S.C.No.89 of 1995, vide judgment dated 20.11.1996. Since he had no assistance to prefer appeal against the conviction, he was languishing in prison all along and he as a Legal Aid Panel Counsel, after coming to know about his prolonged incarceration without exercising his right of appeal had preferred this appeal after getting due instruction from the appellant/accused being convinced that the judgment of the trial Court is palpably erroneous on surmises. Right from inception like delay in registering the FIR, the case of the prosecution suffers severe infirmities and the trial Court erred in not considering those infirmities. 8. Right from inception like delay in registering the FIR, the case of the prosecution suffers severe infirmities and the trial Court erred in not considering those infirmities. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that P.W.1, who alleged to have seen the occurrence, stated that when the accused forcibly took the deceased to a secluded place, she has not informed the Villagers immediately, she has gone to the Police Station on the next day and given the complaint Ex.P.1. In the cross-examination, she admits that there was a Watchman in the nearby Bungalow. Her evidence is self-contradictory to her own complaint. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the deceased Nagoor Meeral was not a stranger to the complainant. Admittedly, the deceased is the Maternal Aunt of P.W.1. While so, her evidence that she was hiding and watching the accused undressing Nagoor Meeral and raping her forcibly without calling for help is unbelievable. The trial Court instead of holding that the evidence of P.W.1 is inconsistent and unnatural, erroneously held their guilty based on unreliable witness. Equally, the evidence of other witnesses, like Fathima [P.W.2], Mariappan [P.W.3] and Raikon [P.W.4] does not inspire confidence to consider as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of this Court to Ex.P.1 complaint, which contains the name of the accused and his Villager name, and submitted that the belated complaint containing the details of the accused is sufficient proof that it was not the information received first by the Police. 11. To substantiate the above submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant would refer to the Accident Register [Ex.P.4] of the Sengottai Hospital, where the entry indicates that the injured lady Nagoor Meeral was brought to the Hospital at 07.45 p.m. by her relatives with alleged history of being raped by unknown person. The cross-examination of the witnesses has elucidated that after the occurrence, there was a meeting in Jamath and only after, deciding about whom to be fixed as an accused for the said crime, the complaint was given to the Police belatedly on the next day, though the occurrence took place on the previous day at about 1.00 p.m., 12. The cross-examination of the witnesses has elucidated that after the occurrence, there was a meeting in Jamath and only after, deciding about whom to be fixed as an accused for the said crime, the complaint was given to the Police belatedly on the next day, though the occurrence took place on the previous day at about 1.00 p.m., 12. The learned counsel for the appellant would specifically submit that among four ladies, who were collecting firewood and returning back home, the accused had chosen the lady around 68 years to satisfy his lust, which itself creates a doubt about the case of prosecution coupled with the fact that all the four ladies admittedly carrying Aruval for collecting firewood and therefore, they need not have feared the accused or at least they could have raised alarm immediately and invited help. 13. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that it is a case of rape and murder of a old lady, who went to the dam area for collecting firewood. The accused, who noticed the vulnerable position of the victim lady, under the guise of helping the other ladies, had isolated Nagoor Meeral [deceased] alone and forcibly lifted her to a secluded place, where he dropped her to the ground, caused head injury, despite that, he forcibly raped her and ravished on her private part, on both the breast and face. The Accident Register [Ex.P.4], which came to be registered by Sengottai Hospital authorities on 24.01.1994 at 07.45 p.m., is the earliest record for the crime, which indicates that the deceased was brought to the Hospital by her relatives. Nagoor Meeral was unconscious and not responded to comments. On physical examination, the Doctor found contusion around both her nipples, contusion of 3 cm. x 2 cm. over left cheek, swelling on the left side forehead and left eyebrow, tearing of vagina wall, contusion around exterior labia majora and irregular tear of posterior vagina wall. 14. Considering the nature of injuries, P.W.9, who was the duty Doctor at Sengottai Hospital, had referred the patient to Tenkasi Government Hospital. The Doctor at Tenkasi Hospital also found that the same injury as noted in Ex.P.4. Since the patient pulse was feeble and she was semi-conscious, the patient was referred to Tirunelveli Government Hospital. 15. 14. Considering the nature of injuries, P.W.9, who was the duty Doctor at Sengottai Hospital, had referred the patient to Tenkasi Government Hospital. The Doctor at Tenkasi Hospital also found that the same injury as noted in Ex.P.4. Since the patient pulse was feeble and she was semi-conscious, the patient was referred to Tirunelveli Government Hospital. 15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the witnesses are rustic Villagers, living in remote place near Forest area, having little access to the main town. Therefore, the minor contradictions cannot be exaggerated in favour of the accused person, who has committed brutal rape and murder. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor to show the decree of violence rely upon Ex.P.17 Postmortem report, in which, the following injuries are noted:- (i) Diffuse bruising seen on the left fronto-temporal region. Brain : Thin sub-arachnoid Hemorrhage on major portions of cerebrals hemisphere. (ii) Diffuse bruising seen on the occipital region. (iii) Multiple small irregular abrasions seen on the left half of the face of varying dimension and they were completely healed. No scab seen. No surrounding contusions. (iv) Abrasion 3 x 3 cm. (Healed state) seen over the medial aspect of left clavicle. (v) Healed irregular abrasion on the outer aspect of right thigh and right lower abdomen. (vi) 3 x 1 cm x muscle deep laceration seen on the centre of left eyebrow. (vii) Contusion over the whole of left upper eye-lid. (viii) Contusion on the left angle of mouth 3 x 3 cm. (ix) Contusion seen just below the right lower lip and chin 3 x 3 cm. respectively. (x) Irregular contusion seen on the left upper arm. (xi) Contusion 11 x 3 cm. seen on the left lower abdomen. (xii) Contusion 3 x 3 cm. seen on the right angle of mouth. (xiii) semi-circular bite marks 4 in number (healed state) seen on the left breast. On Dissection of Abdomen : An area of bruising noted at the left hypochondriac region 7 x 7 cm.'' 16. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the victim lady was brutally ravished by the accused, which was seen by P.W.1 and P.W.2. They both first met Mariappan [P.W.3] who was grazing cattle nearby. Immediately, they took him to the scene of occurrence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the victim lady was brutally ravished by the accused, which was seen by P.W.1 and P.W.2. They both first met Mariappan [P.W.3] who was grazing cattle nearby. Immediately, they took him to the scene of occurrence. When P.W.3 along with P.W.1 and one Karuppasamy went to the scene of occurrence, they found Nagoor Meeral lying naked with bleeding from her private part, breast and injury on the forehead. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that through the eyewitnesses and medical documents, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the conviction and sentence has to be confirmed. 17. Heard the arguments made by learned counsels appearing for the appellant and the State. Records perused. 18. The case of the prosecution is that four women went to dam area for collecting firewood. While returning back, they took rest near Bungalow down the dam. At that time, the accused came and offered help to load the firewood on the head. The accused isolated the deceased Nagoor Meeral, took her to a secluded place, raped her forcibly and also caused head injury. The other three ladies viz., P.W.1, P.W.2 and Ismail Beevi (Not examined) had climbed down for help, met Raikon [P.W.4] and told her to go to the Village and inform the Villagers about the incident. P.W.3, who was grazing cattle nearby along with one Karuppasamy [not examined] went to the place of occurrence along with these ladies and saw the victim lady lying naked and bleeding in her private part and head. Thereafter, other Villagers have come to the place along with the son of the victim viz., Kathar Oli [P.W.6]. 19. The evidence of these witnesses would go to show that the victim was lying without dress. Injuries were notied in her private part, breast, cheek and also on the head. The nature of injury and the state of the victim lady without any doubt proves that she was sexually ravished brutally. To point the needle of suspicion towards the accused, P.W.1 and P.W.2, who were accompanying the victim lady while collecting the firewood, had spoken about how the accused isolated the victim lady and lifted her by gaging her mouth with saree to a secluded place. To point the needle of suspicion towards the accused, P.W.1 and P.W.2, who were accompanying the victim lady while collecting the firewood, had spoken about how the accused isolated the victim lady and lifted her by gaging her mouth with saree to a secluded place. The mental state of these two witnesses on witnessing the occurrence cannot be same as educated persons living in urban area. 20. The Court has to visualize the place where the occurrence took place and the person involved. Admittedly, it is a forest area, near a dam where there is no residence or human habitate. These ladies had gone to collect firewood and invariably, all the witnesses to the prosecution admits that the occurrence took place in the forest area and there is no habitant there. While so, when a young man with full of energy, vigor and lust, identifies his prey, a 58 years old ill-nourished lady [according to postmortem report], the possibility of sexual assault on the deceased as stated by the natural evidence of eyewitnesses P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 cannot be discarded. 21. This Court is not obvious of the fact that the belated F.I.R. registered by the Police and way in which they have conducted investigation, gives room to doubt and criticism, particularly, when P.W.9 Doctor at Sengottai Hospital, has categorically stated that on examining the injured person, she issued Accident Register [Ex.P.4] and also informed the Police through Memo, the Police has not acted immediately, but waited for P.W.1 to come and give written complaint on the next day at 08.00 a.m. However, for their lapses, this Court cannot doubt the natural evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who have witnessed the accused lifting the victim lady after gaging her mouth with Saree, they saw the accused taking the deceased to a secluded place and raped forcibly. P.W.1 and P.W.2 brought the villagers. Soon thereafter, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 went to the scene of crime and saw the victim lady lying unconscious with injuries but without any dress on her body. 22. With all tell-tale evidence of sexual violence, the medical evidence like the Accident Register [Ex.P.4], Wound Certificate [Ex.P.5] and Postmortem report [Ex.P.17] without any doubt indicates that the victim raped Nagoor Meeral forcibly, which ultimately resulted in death of the deceased due to intensive injury on her private part and head. 22. With all tell-tale evidence of sexual violence, the medical evidence like the Accident Register [Ex.P.4], Wound Certificate [Ex.P.5] and Postmortem report [Ex.P.17] without any doubt indicates that the victim raped Nagoor Meeral forcibly, which ultimately resulted in death of the deceased due to intensive injury on her private part and head. Since these injuries were caused by the accused as spoken and proved through P.W.1 and P.W.2, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court stands confirmed. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.