Madras High Court
Sathish @ Dayalan vs The State Rep By on 5 February, 2020
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
Crl.A.No.31 of 2019
IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On 23.11.2019
Pronounced On 05.02.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
Crl.A.No.31 of 2019
Sathish @ Dayalan .. Appellant
Vs.
The State Rep by,
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Vellore.
(Crime No.2/2015) .. Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, to call
for the records and to set aside the judgment dated 20.04.2018 in
S.C.No.35 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir
Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Vellore.
For appellant : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
For Respondent : M.T.Shanmugarajeswaran
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
_____________
Page No 1 of 26
Crl.A.No.31 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 20.04.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Vellore [MNM for the sake of brevity] in Special Sessions Case No.35 of 2015.
2.By the impugned judgment, the MNM Court has found the appellant guilty of offences under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC and Section 6 read with 5(l)(m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012(also referred to as POCSO Act, 2012 for the sake of brevity).
3.The said Court has sentenced the appellant to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000 for the offence under Section 363 of IPC and in default to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment.
4.For the offence under Section 366 of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000 and in default to undergo two month’s simple imprisonment.
_____________ Page No 2 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019
5.For the offence, under Section 6 read with 5(l)(m) of the POCSO Act, 2012 the appellant has been sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3000 and in default to undergo a three months simple imprisonment. While sentencing the appellant, the Court has setoff the period of detention undergone by the appellant.
6.The appellant was aged about 24 years at the time of when the Exhibit P1 complaint was given on 26.01.2015 by PW1 defacto complainant / mother of the PW 2 minor victim against the appellant.
7.The appellant was accused of having committed offences punishable under Section 6 (3 counts) read with Section 5(l)(m) and
(i)(ii) of the POCSO Act, 2012. After enquiry, charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1)(n) of IPC and Section 6 read with 5(l)(m) of POCSO Act, 2012.
8.Before the MNM Court, the respondent State had examined 14 witnesses and marked 17 documents as Exhibits. The appellant has neither produced any witness nor any independent evidence to prove his innocence.
_____________ Page No 3 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019
9.Under Sections 29 of POCSO Act, 2012, there is a presumption that the offences has been committed by the person accused of offences under Section 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the POCSO Act, 2012 unless the contrary is proved. Under Section 30, the Court is also entitled to presume culpable mental state on the part of the accused to commit the offence under the Act.
10.Therefore, the burden of proof was on the appellant to prove his innocence before the MNM Court. In his statement under Section 313(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the appellant has merely denied his involvement.
11.The brief facts of the case of the respondent State before the MNM Court was that the appellant aged 24 years had committed the “aggravated penetrative sexual assault” on PW2 minor victim then aged about 12 years on 13.09.2014 behind a thorny bush at Shenbakkam, behind Pachaiyamman Temple, Vellore District.
12.The further accusation against the appellant was that he once again committed a similar offence on 17.09.2014 on the PW2 minor victim by forcefully taking the minor victim to Konavattum _____________ Page No 4 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019 Puthukoil Temple and committed “aggravated penetrative sexual assault” as a result of which the PW2 minor victim became pregnant.
13.The case of the respondent State was that the PW2 minor victim was being raised by her mother the de-facto complainant (PW1) as a single parent as her husband left her 10 years back.
14.PW2 minor victim had attained puberty but had missed her menses during the month of October 2014 and had complained of stomach pain.
15.Therefore, PW1 the de-facto complainant /mother of the PW2 minor victim took latter for medical treatment to ESI Hospital, Vellore and thereafter to Government Hospital, Vellore where it was confirmed that the PW2 minor victim was already 3/4 months pregnant.
16.On further enquiry, the PW 2 minor victim had named the appellant as the person responsible for her pregnancy. It was stated that the appellant gained confidence of PW2 minor victim by frequently following her, while she used to proceed to the school _____________ Page No 5 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019 and after gaining confidence, had sexual intercourse with her atleast twice resulting in her pregnancy.
17.The law enforcing authorities who were informed by the Government Hospital about teen pregnancy of PW2 minor victim swung into action and deputed PW12 Inspector of Police to investigate. PW12 investigated the case pursuant to which Ex.P11 FIR was registered in Crime No.2/2015 under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1)(n) of IPC and Section 6 read with 5(l)(m) of POCSO Act, 2012.
18.The appellant was thereafter arrested on 27.01.2015 and had purportedly confessed to the crime in presence of PW4 and one Kanakaraj.
19.After medical examination, the PW2 minor victim underwent Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) (abortion) on 26.01.2015 and the sample foetus from the PW2 minor victim was preserved for DNA testing.
_____________ Page No 6 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019
20.PW10 radiologist has also confirmed the age of the PW2 minor victim to between 16 to 18 years while, the certificate issued by Dr.Samima.
21.Statements of PW1 defacto complainant and PW2 minor victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code before PW11 and were marked as Ex.P10 and Ex.P11. PW5 Dr.Selvaraj, the Professor of Legal and Medical the Department, Government Medical College of Hospital, Vellore before whom the appellant was produced by PW9 has also confirmed that the appellant was not impotent.
22.Ex.P4 requisition letter of Sessions Judge of MNM, Court and Ex.P5 Medical Certificate dated 04.04.2015 were marked respectively. PW7 Dr.Nagendra Kumar, Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College, Vellore before whom both the PW2 minor victim and the appellant were produced for collection of blood samples of them and the samples were sent to FTA cards for DNA examination. Exhibit P6 is the Court requisition letter. PW13, the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Department, Vellore has signed the Ex.P17 dated 09.10.2015 along with Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government and Deputy Director. _____________ Page No 7 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019 As per the Exhibit P17 DNA Report profile of biological mother in comparison with the accused could not be carried.
23.Before the trail Court, the de-facto complainant/mother of the PW2 minor victim was examined as PW1 while the minor victim herself was examined as PW2. Both the statements confirm the commission “aggravated penetrative sexual assault” by the appellant within the meaning of Section 2(b) of POSCO Act, 2012.
24.In this appeal, the main ground on which the appellant has challenged the conviction and sentence awarded is on the ground that Exhibit P17 DNA report dated 09.06.2015 does not confirm that the PW2 minor victim became pregnant because of the appellant.
25.It is further stated that evidence of PW13 Dr. Thilaga, Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai has not been considered by the MNM Court properly and therefore the appellant has been wrongly convicted for the alleged offences.
26. It is further stated that the MNM Court has also not examined the age of the PW2 minor victim with the Radiologist Report in Exhibit P8. It is further submitted that the place of _____________ Page No 8 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019 occurrence of the offence was improbable and the evidence of PW2 minor victim also did not support the case of the prosecution.
27. It is further submitted that the Ex.P11 FIR was belatedly registered after 4 ½ months and therefore, it raised the serious question regarding the creditability of the case of the respondent and therefore, benefit of doubt should go to the appellant. It is further stated that Ex.P11 FIR bears two seals dated 27.01.2015 and that the Ex.P11 FIR does not bear the signature of the concerned Magistrate and therefore, on this Court also the benefit of doubt should go to the appellant. It is further submitted that in the evidence of PW 2 minor victim is inconsistency none of evidence of other witnesses support of the case of prosecution and therefore the appellant was entitled to be acquitted.
28. It is further submitted that there are no cloths of the appellant to connect with the offence to convict the appellant for the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the evidence of PW2 minor victim has severally inconsistency and therefore, it cannot be relied upon. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant relies on the following decisions:-
_____________ Page No 9 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019 i. Suresh N Bhusare Vs. State of Maharastra, (1999) 1 SCC 220.
ii. Jai Krishan Mandel Vs. State of Jharkand, (2010) 14 SCC 534.
iii. Raju and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 133.
iv. Tameezuddin alias Tammu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2009 15 SCC 566.
v. The State of Maharashtra Vs. Krushna and Another, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 7670.
vi. State Vs. Abhinandan Kumar, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8585.
vii.State Vs. Vijay, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8399.
29. It is further stated that the PW2 minor victim was aged not 14 years, as per the Ex.P8 Radiologist's report was aged between 16 and 18. It is stated that in absence of injury and rupture to the hymen in PW 2 minor victim's private part, it cannot be said there was rape.
30. Further contradictions are sought to be elicited between Ex.P2 Xerox copy which is the birth certificate of the PW2 minor victim and Ex.P8 age certificate dated 24.02.2015 issued by the Radiologist and the evidence of PW1 defacto complainant and PW2 minor victim.
_____________ Page No 10 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019
31. On these submissions, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the order holding the appellant guilty of the offences. On the heard, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the present Criminal Appeal on the ground that the order of the MNN Court was well reasoned and requires no interference. It is submitted that even if there are minor discrepancy in Ex.P 17, the statement of PW2 minor victim is consistent all through and therefore the fact whether she became pregnant or not and whether the DNA test failed to link the appellant to the crime is of no consequence.
32. It is submitted that the evidence of the PW 2 minor victim inspired the confidence of the Court and therefore the MNM Court convicted the appellant. He therefore submits that the present Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
33. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.
34. The fact that PW2 minor victim was subjected to “penetrative sexual assault” and became pregnant and had to undergo abortion on 26.01.2015 is not in dispute. _____________ Page No 11 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019
35. The alleged offence is said to have been committed by the appellant on 13.09.2014 and on 17.09.2014. PW2 minor victim has also confirmed that she had more than two sexual encounters with the appellant. The statement of PW2 minor victim and that de facto complainant PW1 also confirms that the appellant had committed “aggravated penetrative sexual assault” on the PW2 minor victim. They are consistent and no contradiction has been elicited by the appellant.
36. In this appeal, the main ground on which the appellant seeks to set aside the impugned order of the MNM Court is based on the inconclusive report in Ex.P17 dated 09.06.2015 of the Forensic Science Department.
37. As per Ex.P17, a cloth parcel enclosing a thermocol box containing plastic container labeled I.P.No.4769 Age 13/year/F and containing pieces of tissue was received on 30.01.2015. The appellant's blood sample along with PW2 minor victim’s blood sample were also received through WHC 3637 Tmt.Sharadha with correct seal.
_____________ Page No 12 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019
38. Relevant portion of Exhibit P17 dated 06.09.2015 reads as follows:
REPORT: DNA was extracted from the above blood samples and amplified for 15 STR lociusing PCR amplified STR technique after taking due care for the integrity of each sample.
The DNA typing results of alleged accused Mr.R.Sathish @ Dhayalan is given in annexure I. The DNA typing results of the tissue piece (of ref
2) is given in annexure II. The DNA typing results of the biological mother xyz*is given in annexure III. A comparative analysis of test results is given in annexure IV.
From the comparative analysis of test results as shown in annexure IV, the tissue pieces (of ref 2) and the biological mother xyz*have identical alleles under all the 15 STR loci tested.
Since the DNA profile of tissue pieces (of ref
2) is similar to the DNA profile of biological mother xyz*, comparison with the alleged accused Mr.R.Sathis @ Dhayalan could not be carried out.
Conclusion: From the DNA typing results of the above samples, it is found that the tissue pieces (of ref 2) are that of xyz*.
[Note name of the minor victim xyz* has been removed to protect the identity of the minor victim.)
39. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent State. I have also perused the Exhibits and the _____________ Page No 13 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019 deposition of witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent State before the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (FTMC),Vellore. (also referred as MNM Court in this order)
40. Victim PW2 had complained of stomach pain and had missed her monthly menses ie. periods during October, 2014. Therefore, PW1 defacto complainant / mother of the PW 2 minor victim took PW2 minor victim to ESI Hospital, Vellore during the month of October 2014. There PW2 Minor Victim was initially diagnosed weak and anaemic and was given treatment for the said medical condition.
41. Since the treatment did not yield any results, PW1 defacto complainant / mother of the PW 2 minor victim took PW2 minor victim to Government Hospital, Adkumbarai, Vellore District on 02.01.2015. There, it was found that the minor victim PW2 was already three months pregnant.
42. Under these circumstances, the criminal proceeding came to be initiated commencing with the investigation and with the identification of the appellant as the accused for the alleged crime on the PW2 minor victim under the provisions of Section 363, _____________ Page No 14 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019 Section 366 and Section 376(1)(n) of IPC and under Section 6 r/w Section 5(l)(m) of POCSO Act, 2012.
43. The foetus was aborted on 26.01.2015. This is evident from per Ex.P7 dated 16.07.2015. It appears that the Asst. Prof., Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Government Vellore Medical College had suo motto sent the sample for DNA testing on 26.01.2015 from Ex.P7.
44. As per Exhibit P7 dated 16.07.2015, the PW2 minor victim was admitted on 26.01.2015 while she was discharged on 05.02.2015.
45. Meanwhile, vide Exhibit P13 dated 29.01.2015, the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (FTMC) Vellore is said to have sent the PW2 minor victim along with WHC3637 Tmt. Saratha to the Medical Officer, Vellore Government Medical College with a request to preserve the foetus and to do the needful to conduct DNA test and to send a report to the said Court.
46. Ex.PI3 was sent though as per Ex.P7 dated 26.01.2015, the Asst Prof, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, _____________ Page No 15 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019 Government Vellore Medical College had already sent the foetus of PW2 minor victim for DNA testing to find out “Whether the accused Sathish the appellant herein was the biological father or not?
47. Exhibit P16 dated 16.02.2015 is the requisition sent by the Deputy Director DNA Division, Forensic Science Department to the MNM Court is instruct the Medical Officer to collect the blood from the accused and the biological mother i.e PW2 minor victim in the blood card enclosed therein and return the same after testing.
48. Exhibit P6 dated 20.02.2015 of the Sessions Judge, MNM Court also sent a requisition letter to the Police Surgeon and Professor of Forensic Medicine, to collect the blood samples of the accused Sathish and biological mother i.e PW2 minor victim on the FTA cards enclosed therewith and to send the same to MNM court for onwards transmission to the Forensic Science Department, Chennai.
49. Vide Exhibit P14 dated 27.02.2015, the Session Judge of MNM court also sent the blood samples of the minor victim PW2 and that of the accused in FTA cards through W.H.C3637 Tmt.D.Saradha with a request to examine the blood samples of the above persons _____________ Page No 16 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019 and to send a report to the Court. This procedure was not followed for collecting the sample of the foetus and sending it for DNA testing.
50. Exhibit P15 dated 03.03.2015 states that the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai received one sealed paper cover with seals correct & intact Cr.No.2/2015 AWPS Vellore from W.H.C 3637 Tmt.D.Saradha.
51. If the PW 2minor victim was already admitted in the hospital and had undergone the procedure for abortion on 26.01.2015 and had not been discharged, question of her being sent to the Hospital on 30th January 2015 once again for the same purpose shows improper handling of evidence the respondent State. Perhaps the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (FTMC) Vellore was not appraised of the position clearly when Ex.P13 dated 29.01.2015 was issued by him.
52. Thus, there appears to be two samples of tissues that were taken from PW2 minor victim. One sample dated 26.01.2015 which was purpotedly directly sent after the abortion/medical _____________ Page No 17 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019 termination of pregnancy of PW2 minor victim and the other sample received on 30.01.2015 by the Forensic Science Department pursuant to the requisition of the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (FTMC) Vellore vide Ex.P13 dated 29.01.2015 sent through WHC3637 Tmt. Saratha, though there was no specific letter to send the sample.
53. The sample referred to in Ex.17 dated 09.06.2015 does clearly states that the samples which were tested for DNA were the blood of the Appellant and the PW 2 minor victim and the tissue of the PW2 minor victim and not that of the aborted foetus of PW 2 minor victim. PW 13 Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai in her deposition has also clearly stated that the tissue that was received for DNA testing was not that of the aborted foetus but that of the minor victim and therefore they could not compare it with the DNA of the appellant from the blood sample collected.
54. In Ex.P17 dated 09.06.2015, it has been stated that since the DNA profile of tissue pieces (of ref 2) is similar to the DNA profile of biological mother xyz, comparison with the alleged accused Mr.R.Sathish @ Dhaylan could not be carried out and in the conclusion, it has been stated that from the DNA typing results of _____________ Page No 18 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019 the above samples, it is found that the tissue pieces (of ref 2) are that of xyz*. (*xyz – PW2 Minor victim)
55. For a reading of Exhibit P17 DNA report dated 09.06.2015 signed by PW13 Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai along with Assistant Chemical Examiner, it is clear that they could not make comparison of the DNA of the accused with tissue of PW2 minor victim as the respondent State failed to take adequate care in properly sending the foetus for DNA testing.
56. This is perhaps on account of the fact that on 26.01.2015 the sample had already been sent by the Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Government Medical College, Vellore. However, this was not examined.
57. Instead, the sample was purportedly sent pursuant to Ex.P13 dated 29.01.2015 of the Learned Session Judge of MNM Court through WHC 3637 Tmt. Saradha. Relevant portion of the said Exhibit reads as under:-
Dis No.122/2015 dated: 29.01.2015 Sub: Cases - Criminal – (AWPS, Vellore) Cr.No.2/2015, U/s 376 IPC r/w and section 6 of _____________ Page No 19 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019 Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 – Victim Girl xyz D/o zyx – Sankar – Send for Medical examination (DNATest) – Reg. Ref: Requisition given by the Inspector of Police, AWPS Vellore, Dated: 29.01.2015.
......
I am sending herewith the victim girl xyz D/o zyx concerned in AWPS Vellore Cr.No.2/2015, U/s 376 IPC r/w and section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act 2012 through WHC 3637 Tmt.Saradha and request you to examine medically the above victim girl and to preserve the foetus and do the needful to conduct DNA test and on the aspect mentioned here under and send the report to this court at an early date.
I am sending herewith the requisition given by the Inspector of Police, AWPS Vellore and the history of the case for your perusal.
58. Deposition of PW13 indicates the respondent State had sent only the tissue of PW2 minor victim and not that of the foetus that was aborted.
59. It is not clear what kind of tissue was sent for examination on 30.01.2015 through WHC 3637 Tmt. Saratha. Facts however confirm that the sample from the aborted foetus was not sent for DNA testing. Curiously and for reasons best known, WHC 3637 Tmt. Saratha was not examined as a witness on behalf of the respondent State.
_____________ Page No 20 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019
60. It is thus clear that the Inspector of Police, AWPS Vellore had not examined the facts clearly and wrongly sent a requisition to the learned Session Judge. There was no necessity to send the PW2 minor Victim with W.H.C 3637 Tmt. Saradha to the Government Medical College & Hospital, Adukkambarai, Vellore District when she was already in the Hospital recuperating in the Hospital after undergoing abortion and was discharged only on 05.02.2015.
61. From the available on records it is evident that the prosecution had failed to ensure proper collection of foetus for DNA examination and therefore Exhibit P17 has not linked the appellant with the foetus. The evidence was not properly preserved and sent for DNA testing.
62. It thus remains to be examined whether the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt given to the appellant or whether he can be held guilty as has been held based on the evidence of the PW2 minor victim alone. If the statement of PW2 minor victim inspires confidence, notwithstanding the inconclusive DNA Report in Ex. P17, conviction can be sustained.
_____________ Page No 21 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019
63. The statement of PW2 minor victim is however consistent. The appellant had subjected the PW 2 minor victim to through cross examination. Despite such cross examination, the appellant was unable to elicit any contradiction from the minor victim in his favour. On the other hand, he has exposed himself. At the time of the recording of evidence, PW 2 minor victim was aged about 14 years. During cross examination, questions were also asked on behalf of the appellant to PW 2 minor victim as to how many times the appellant had forced himself on the PW 2 minor victim. PW 2 minor victim has stated that the appellant had forced on her on several occasions though she could not recollect how many times. During cross examination PW 2 minor victim has also confirmed that she developed acquaintance with the appellant when she was studying in 8th standard. The victim has also confirmed that she did not know the consequence and that she had visited the temple to see the appellant and that she would not have given a complaint against the appellant but for the fact that she became pregnant. During the cross-examination the PW 2 minor victim has also stated that the appellant had promised to marry her. The PW 2 minor victim has also stated that she was fond of the appellant and that she did not develop relationship with the appellant on her own implying that the _____________ Page No 22 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019 appellant pursued her and thereafter committed the alleged offence. The questions that were posed to the PW 2 minor victim also implicitly admit that the appellant had got to know the minor victim and they were not strangers. PW2 minor victim has also stated that she used to meet the appellant near the said temple during lunch period and that the appellant to come to meet her there. Thus, there is no denial that the appellant had known PW2 minor victim and used to meet frequently and had sexual intercourse. It is clear that the appellant took undue advantage of the innocence and the age of the PW2 minor victim and committed the offence.
64. In my view, the appellant has not discharged the burden of proof properly to distance himself either from the offence or from pregnancy of the PW 2 minor victim. Though the respondent State was careless in not sending proper sample of the aborted foetus for DNA testing, nevertheless the evidence particularly the questioning of PW2 minor victim during cross examination has completly exposed the appellant of not only impregnating the PW 2 minor victim after sexually assaulting her on several occasions by taking advantage of the age and innocence of the PW 2 minor victim. PW 2 minor victim has also confirmed that she had sexual intercourse with appellant on more than two occasions though in Ex.P1 _____________ Page No 23 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019 Complaint and Ex. P11 FIR only two episodes of sexual intercourse has been stated.
65. I find that the appellant has not discharged the burden of proof to distance himself for an acquittal but on the contrary has further exposed himself of having committed the offence by asking questions during course of cross-examination of PW 2 minor victim.
66. Under these circumstances, I find no reasons to interfere with the findings of the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) in impugned Judgment dated 20.04.2018. Therefore, I am inclined to uphold the Judgment dated 20.04.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Vellore.
67. In view of the above, the present Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
05.02.2020 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No jen _____________ Page No 24 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019 To
1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Vellore.
2.The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Vellore.
3.The Section Officer, V.R.Section. High Court, Madras.
_____________ Page No 25 of 26 Crl.A.No.31 of 2019 C.SARAVANAN, J.
Jen Pre-Delivery Judgment in Crl.A.No.31 of 2019 05.02.2020 _____________ Page No 26 of 26