Madras High Court
R.Velu vs State Rep.By on 16 July, 2020
Author: T.Ravindran
Bench: T.Ravindran
Crl.A.No.465 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 03.06.2020
PRONOUNCED ON : 16.07.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
Crl.A.No.465 of 2014
R.Velu ... Appellant/Accused
Vs.
State rep.by:
Inspector of Police
N-1 Royapuram Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer:- This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the
Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 08.08.2014 passed in
S.C.No.190 of 2013 on the file of the Mahalir Neethi Mandram, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Thankira
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
JUDGMENT
The Sessions Judge, MahalirNeethiMandram, Chennai, by judgment dated 08.08.2014 passed in S.C.No.190 of 2013 has convicted the appellant/accused under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years also and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and under Section 417 http://www.judis.nic.in 1/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and directed that the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the appellant/accused to run concurrently and challenging the same, the criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused.
2.Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the victim girl was residing opposite to the accused house and six months prior to 11.05.2010, the accused took the victim girl to his residence for the purpose of arranging the marriage and at that time, no one was present in the residence of the accused and the accused enticed the victim girl by assuring her that he would marry her and thereby, directed her to submit to his desires and though the victim girl had resisted to the overacts made by the accused, the accused forced the victim girl to have sexual intercourse with him against her will and consent and thus committed rape on her and thereby, according to the prosecution, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 IPC.
3.To sustain the prosecution case, PWs 1 to 9 were examined. Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. No Mo has been marked. On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.Cwith http://www.judis.nic.in 2/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014 reference to the incriminating evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses and the accused had denied the same and according to the accused, the case has been falsely foisted against him on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the accused, no oral and documentary evidence has been adduced and no M.O has been marked.
4.The Sessions Judge, MahalirNeethimandram, Chennai, on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the matter, proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant/accused under Sections 376 & 417 IPC as aforestated. Impugning the same, the criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused.
5.Considering the charges levelled against the accused, it is found that the prosecution has to establish that the accused had committed the offence of rape against the victim girl without her consent by forcing her to have sexual intercourse with him six months prior to 11.05.2010 at the residence of the accused by enticing her that he would marry her. In this matter, the victim girl has been examined as PW1. Now, according to the victim girl (PW1), as deposed by her, she and the accused were engaged in love for two years and http://www.judis.nic.in 3/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014 their love affair is not known to her family members and further, she would state that she voluntarily got engaged in love with the accused and she was 18 years of age at that point of time and she has further proceeded to state that she had chosen to commit suicide by consuming tablets and thereby, she had been admitted in the hospital and only after the police came and enquired her, she came to know that the accused had got married with his sister's daughter on 05.05.2010 and therefore, according to her, inasmuch as the accused, during the time when they were engaged in love, had taken her to his residence and forcibly committed rape on her against her consent by assuring that he would marry her and as the accused had failed to maintain his promise and on the other hand, proceeded to marry his sister's daughter, according to PW1, the victim girl, she had been necessitated to lay the complaint Ex.P1 and it is found that as deposed by the victim girl and on a perusal of Ex.P1 complaint, the victim girl has levelled the allegations not only against the accused but also against Prakash, Jegan and Kala, who, according to the victim girl, were also assisting the accused in the commission of the offences perpetrated against her and the victim girl would also depose that she had contracted a marriage and living with her husband and the abovesaid evidence tendered by PW1 is wholly and solely relied upon by the trial Court for convicting and sentencing the http://www.judis.nic.in 4/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014 accused of the offences levelled against him.
6.Before adverting to and considering the evidence of the victim girl, it is necessary to refer to the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses examined in the matter. PW2 Devaki is the mother of the victim girl. On a perusal of the evidence of PW2, it is found that she has no direct knowledge about the love affair said to have been in existence between the victim girl and the accused and according to PW2, she came to know of their love affair only after the victim girl had consumed tablets and admitted in the hospital and only thereafter, according to PW2, on being apprised by the victim girl, she came to know about the incident put forth by the prosecution that the accused had committed rape on the victim girl by assuring that he would marry her and therefore, as rightly contended by the accused counsel, the evidence of PW2 being only in the nature of hearsay evidence and she having no direct knowledge about the love affair between the victim girl and the accused and also admittedly, not having any direct knowledge about the incident involved in the matter, in the light of the abovesaid position, the evidence of PW2 would be of no use to sustain the prosecution case.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014
7.PW3 Radhika is the sister of the victim girl. She would also claim during the course of chief examination that her sister viz., the victim girl had chosen to end her life by consuming tablets and only thereafter, on enquiring the victim girl, she and the other family members came to know that the victim girl and the accused were engaged in love and the accused had committed rape on the victim girl by assuring that he would marry her and on the other hand, the accused had chosen to marry his sister's daughter and therefore, according to PW3, the complaint had been lodged. During the course of cross examination, PW3 has clearly admitted that she has no direct knowledge about the love affair between the victim girl and the accused and no one had apprised her about the same and though she had also accompanied the victim girl at the time of lodgement of the complaint, she was not informed about the commission of rape perpetrated by the accused on the victim girl and she was informed about the marriage of the accused only by the police and thereafter, the complaint had been lodged. The above being the nature of PW3's evidence, as rightly put forth by the accused counsel, her testimony would be of no assistance to buttress the prosecution case.
8.PW4 Karthick is the brother of the victim girl. Though PW4 would http://www.judis.nic.in 6/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014 claim during the course of chief examination that he had seen the victim girl and the accused together, however, according to him, he had not questioned the victim girl about the same and further, he would state that the victim girl attempted to commit suicide by consuming poison and had been admitted in the hospital and according to him, as adduced during the course of chief examination, he does not know as to why his sister viz., the victim girl has consumed poison and he would further state that inasmuch as the accused had contracted marriage with his sister's daughter, the complaint had been lodged and the claim of PW4 that he had knowledge about the love affair between the victim girl and the accused, as such, cannot be readily accepted, for the reason that if really the same had been true, PW4 being the brother of the victim girl would have apprised the same to the other family members and on the other hand, his conduct that he had not questioned the victim girl with reference to the same would only go to show that he has no direct knowledge about any love affair said to have been in existence between the victim girl and the accused. Therefore, his claim that he had knowledge about the love affair between the victim girl and the accused, as such, cannot be readily accepted and such being the position, his evidence about the incident would only be by way of hearsay knowledge and such being the position, as rightly contended by http://www.judis.nic.in 7/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014 the accused counsel, the evidence of PW4 would be of no use to substantiate the prosecution case.
9.PW5Madhan Raj is the husband of the sister of the victim girl. According to PW5, during 9th month of 2010, the victim girl called him over phone and on meeting the victim girl pursuant to the same, according to him, the victim girl fainted and immediately, she was rushed to the Stanley Hospital and he was informed by the doctor that the victim girl had attempted to commit suicide by consuming poison and according to him, on questioning the victim girl, he came to know about the love affair said to have been in existence between the victim girl and the accused and the offence of rape committed by the accused on the victim girl by assuring that he would marry her and during the course of cross examination, he has admitted that he does not have any direct knowledge about the love affair between the victim girl and the accused and knew about the same only after being informed by the victim girl and therefore, his evidence being of the above nature, as contended by the accused counsel, his evidence would be of no use to sustain the prosecution case with http://www.judis.nic.in 8/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014 reference to the establishment of the charges levelled against the accused.
10.Barring the evidence of PWs 2 to 5, we have only the solitary evidence of the victim girl examined as PW1. As above pointed out, according to the victim girl, she had been freely moving with the accused on account of the love affair between them for nearly two years and further, according to the victim girl, on a particular date, the accused took her to his residence for getting the consent of his family members for their marriage and at that point of time, no one was available in the accused residence and taking advantage of the same, the accused enticed and lured her that he would marry her and on that assurance, forced to have sexual intercourse with her and though she had resisted to the moves and endeavours of the accused, according to the victim girl, the accused had forcibly committed rape on her against her will and consent by assuring that he would marry her and inasmuch as he had contracted the marriage with his sister’s daughter, according to the victim girl, the complaint Ex.P1 has come to be lodged. During the course of evidence, a suggestion had been put by the accused to the victim girl that there has been no husband and wife relationship between the accused and the victim girl and the accused has not committed rape on the victim girl as alleged by her. No doubt, http://www.judis.nic.in 9/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014 the abovesaid suggestion has been denied by the victim girl. According to the victim girl, the accused had spoiled her virginity by forcibly committing rape on her on the fateful day by assuring that he would marry her against her will and consent and therefore, it has to be seen whether the victim girl's evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence adduced in the matter.
11.During the course of investigation, it is found that both the victim girl and the accused were subjected to medical examination and the accused had been examined by the medical officer examined as PW6 and PW6 would opine on examining the accused, that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is not capable of performing sexual intercourse. The certificate issued by PW6 has been marked as Ex.P3. In so far as the victim girl is concerned, it is found that she had been examined by the medical officer Dr.Seethalakshmi examined as PW7 and the certificate issued by PW7 has been marked as Ex.P6. It is found that the victim girl had been examined as PW1, on 12.05.2010 immediately after the lodgement of the complaint Ex.P1. PW7 has not mentioned in the certificate Ex.P5 that she was informed by the victim girl about the love affair with the accused and the accused had forcibly committed rape on her and in addition to that, on a perusal of the 161 statement of the http://www.judis.nic.in 10/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014 medical officer Dr.Seethalakshmi, it is seen that she has not informed to the I.O about the victim girl having apprised her about the love affair, which she had with the accused and that, the accused had committed forcible rape on her against her will and consent. For the first time, PW7 had deposed before the trial Court that on enquiry, the victim girl had apprised her that she had been engaged in love with the accused for two years and that the accused had committed rape on her and following the same, it is found that PW7 had proceeded to examine the victim girl. According to PW7, on examining the victim girl, no external injuries were seen by her over Mammal, Cheeks, Thigh, Genital and further, according to her, on genital examination, she found valua- intact, hymen - intact and Fourchetle – intact, Perineum - intact and her vagina admits tip of little finger and further, according to the medical officer PW7, she had collected the vaginal smear of the victim girl for chemical examination and noted that no spermatozoa was present in the same and on the basis of the abovesaid examination, the medical officer PW7 finally opined that the victim girl showed no evidence of sexual intercourse and the certificate issued by her, as abovestated, been marked as Ex.P5. Therefore, on a perusal of the evidence adduced by the medical officer PW7 and the certificate issued by her Ex.P5, it is found that there had been no external injuries on the body of the victim girl, http://www.judis.nic.in 11/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014 particularly, on the vital parts as disclosed by the medical officer, her vulua, and hymen are found to be intact and there was no presence of spermatozoa in the vaginal smear collected from the victim girl and in view of the abovesaid position, it is found that the medical officer had opined that the victim girl showed no evidence of sexual intercourse. In the light of the abovesaid medical evidence adduced by PW7, as rightly contended by the accused counsel, the medical evidence adduced in the matter, absolutely, does not lend support to the claim of the victim girl that she had been forcibly raped by the accused on the fateful day against her will and consent as alleged by her and thereby, the accused had spoiled her virginity. When the medical officer has not informed during the course of investigation about the information disclosed by the victim girl about the love affair said to have been engaged by her with the accused and the commission of rape of the accused on the victim girl and also not disclosed the same in Ex.P5 certificate, in such view of the matter, her evidence for the first time during the course of trial that she had been informed by the victim girl about the love affair and the commission of rape on the victim girl by the accused, as such, cannot be readily accepted. Be that as it may, when the medical evidence does not provide support to the alleged commission of rape said to have been committed by the accused on the victim http://www.judis.nic.in 12/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014 girl in any manner, in such view of the matter, the case of the prosecution that the victim girl had been subjected to forcible rape by the accused against her will and consent on the fateful day as alleged by the victim girl, as such, cannot be countenanced in any manner.
12.However, the trial Court proceeded to rely upon the case of the prosecution on the solitary evidence of the victim girl on the notion that the mere penetration is alone sufficient to prove the offence of rape as outlined by the decisions of the High Court and the Apex Court. No doubt, mere penetration alone may be sufficient to prove the offence under Section 376 IPC. However, when it is noted that it is the claim of the victim girl that she had been engaged in love affair with the accused for two years and accordingly, freely moving with the accused and on that basis, the accused had taken her to his residence and had forcible sexual intercourse against her will and consent, when it is found that the above case of the victim girl is being totally challenged by the accused, particularly, when the accused had even questioned the so-called love affair between the victim girl and the accused and on the other hand, when the accused had taken the defence that he had not http://www.judis.nic.in 13/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014 been engaged in any love with the victim girl and on the other hand, it is the victim girl, who had been in on one side love with the accused and further, it is the case of the accused that on the accused contracting marriage with his sister's daughter, unable to digest as the same, according to the accused, the case of rape had falsely implicated against him by the victim girl with a view to wreak vengeance against him and therefore, according to the accused, he had not responded to the love affair expressed by the victim girl and not given any assurance that he would marry her and not had any forcible sexual intercourse as alleged by the victim girl at his residence and therefore, when the above being defence version of the accused, at least to establish that the accused and the victim girl were engaged in love for nearly two years, they should be some positive and reliable evidence on the side of the prosecution pointing to the same. As above pointed out, PWs2 to 5 have no direct knowledge about the love affair said to have been in existence between the victim girl and the accused and though PWs2 & 4 would claim to have knowledge, however, considering their evidence intoto as above pointed out, their evidence would only go to show that they have no direct knowledge about the alleged love affair between the victim girl and the accused. Therefore, the claim of the victim girl that on the basis of the love affair between her and the accused, the http://www.judis.nic.in 14/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014 accused took her to his residence 6 months prior to 11.05.2010 and committed rape on her by assuring that he would marry her, as such, cannot be readily believed and accepted. If really, the victim girl and the accused had been engaged in any love affair for nearly two years and moving freely in the locality, the same would have been noted by the nearby residents /neighbours and the prosecution would have endeavoured to establish the said affair by examining the witnesses having knowledge about the same. However, the prosecution has not endeavoured to examine any person having knowledge about the so-called love affair between the victim girl and the accused and when their witnesses PWs 2 to 5 are found to have no direct knowledge with reference to the same, in the light of the abovesaid factors, it has to be held that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the victim girl and the accused had been engaged in love for nearly two years as claimed by the victim girl.
13.In addition to that, the victim girl is alleged to have committed suicide by consuming tablets and got admitted in the hospital and only thereafter, according to her family members examined in the matter, they came to know about the love affair between the victim girl and the accused and the http://www.judis.nic.in 15/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014 assurance given by the accused that he would marry the victim girl and the commission of forcible rape of the accused on the victim girl on that false assurance. Even with reference to the abovesaid case projected by the prosecution that the victim girl had chosen to commit suicide by consuming tablets, on coming to know that the accused, contrary to his assurance of marrying her,had contracted marriage with his sister's daughter, absolutely, there is no material projected on the side of the prosecution that the victim girl had indeed chosen to commit suicide by consuming tablets as alleged by the victim girl during the course of her evidence. In fact, in the complaint Ex.P1, nothing has been averred about the victim girl having chosen to end her life by consuming tablets on noting that the accused had contracted marriage with his sister's daughter contrary to the assurance given by him that he would marry the victim girl. In this connection, the I.O PW8 examined in this matter during the course of cross examination has testified that the victim girl had come to lodge the complaint only from proceeding from her residence and during investigation, PW1 has not disclosed that she had attempted to commit suicide and further, he would also state that the person, who had accompanied with the victim girl, had not informed him that the accused had been engaged in love affair with the victim girl and as the accused had deceived, the victim girl had http://www.judis.nic.in 16/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014 chosen to commit suicide. Therefore, as could be seen from the abovesaid evidence adduced by the I.O PW8, nothing is disclosed even during the course of investigation that the victim girl had chosen to end her life by consuming tablets on coming to know of the accused contracted marriage with his sister's daughter. Inasmuch as no such love affair had been in existence between the victim girl and the accused at any point of time as alleged by the victim girl and since the accused had also not given any assurance that he would marry the victim girl, it is found that the prosecution is unable to establish their case that the victim girl has attempted to commit suicide by consuming tablets in any manner and therefore, the abovesaid theory projected by the prosecution that the family members of the victim girl had come to know about the love affair and the commission of rape said to have been caused by the accused only after the victim girl had chosen to end her life by consuming tablets, as such, cannot be believed and accepted in any manner.
14.Further more in the complaint Ex.P1, the victim girl would proceed to state that it was only the accused, who had been insisting her to love him and also blackmailing her, he would commit suicide, if she does not respond to his love and only thereafter, the victim girl had chosen to engage in love with the http://www.judis.nic.in 17/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014 accused. However, with reference to the abovesaid case, nothing has been stated by her during the course of her evidence and on the other hand, she would only state that she and the accused were engaged in love for two years. However, when the abovesaid alleged love affair has been totally disputed by the accused and therefore, the claim of the victim girl that based on the love affair said to have been in existence between her and the accused, the accused had been assuring that he would marry her cannot at all be believed and therefore, the further case that the accused, by inducing that he would marry her, had forcible sex against her will and consent at his residence, as such, cannot be believed and accepted.
15.When the claim of the victim girl that she had been ravished and forcibly raped by the accused does not get fortified by the medical evidence adduced in the matter and the alleged claim of the victim girl that she was engaged in love affair with the accused for two years is also not borne out by reliable and acceptable evidence and when the claim of the victim girl and the other prosecution witnesses that the victim girl had chosen to end her life by consuming tablets, on the accused contracting marriage with his sister's daughter, is also not fortified by any reliable and acceptable evidence and http://www.judis.nic.in 18/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014 when the prosecution has not endeavored to establish the free and consensual love affair said to have been in existence between the victim girl and the accused in any manner, the theory projected by the prosecution that based on the love affair, the accused had been assuring her that he would marry her, to the ground and therefore, the further case of the prosecution that the accused had, on that false promise, committed forcible rape on the victim girl against her will and consent also falls to the ground, particularly, when the so-called commission of rape said to have been perpetrated by the accused is also not substantiated by the medical evidence adduced in the matter and considering the abovesaid factors, it is seen that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish both the charges levelled against the accused under Sections 417 and 376 IPC.
16.In fact, it is noted that the complaint had been lodged by the victim girl not only against the accused but also three more persons viz., the family members of the accused. However, on investigation, it is found that as the other accused had been included in the matter falsely, hence their names had been omitted to be included in the final report and the final report had been levied only against the accused. However, considering the totality of the evidence adduced in the matter, when it is seen that the prosecution has http://www.judis.nic.in 19/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014 miserably failed to establish the so-called love affair between the victim girl and the accused and also the alleged assurance said to have been given by the accused that he would marry the victim girl and also the commission of rape on the victim girl against her will and consent as alleged by the victim girl, in such view of the matter, the trial Court is found to have totally erred in upholding the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused under Sections 376 & 417 IPC based on the unreliable and unacceptable solitary evidence of PW1.
17. In this connection, the Government Advocate contended that insofar as the offence of rape is concerned, the victim girl's evidence is solely sufficient for sustaining the conviction of the accused. The abovesaid position of law is not in dispute. However the Apex Court in the decision rendered in Criminal Appeal No.1095 of 2018 dated 29.08.2018 [ Dola @ Dolagobinda Pradhan and another Vs. The State of Odisha] has held that the testimony of the victim girl can be relied upon provided it inspires confidence and supported by medical evidence and further held that the when the case of the victim girl is not supported by medical evidence and the whole surrounding circumstances are also highly improbable and belie the case set up by her, the Court should http://www.judis.nic.in 20/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014 not act on the solitary evidence of the victim girl and further pointed out that the accused also should be protected against the possibility of false implication. The abovesaid position of law with reference to the same has been highlighted by the Apex Court in the above said decision and the same is indicated below:
“7. In Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs. State of Maharashtra, [(2006) 10 SCC 92], this Court reiterated that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix could be relied upon if it inspires the confidence of the Court:
9. It is true that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring confidence in the mind of the court. If the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix.
The courts shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the entire case is improbable and unlikely to happen.
http://www.judis.nic.in 21/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014
8. However, as is also evident from the observations above, such reliance may be placed only if the testimony of the prosecutrix appears to be worthy of credence. In this regard, it is also relevant to note the following observations of this Court in the case of Raju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [(2008) 15 SCC 133], which read thus:
10. The aforesaid judgments lay down the basic principle that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be believed, more so as her statement has to be evaluated on a par with that of an injured witness and if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid observations must carry the greatest weight and we respectfully agree with them, but at the same time they cannot be universally and mechanically applied to the facts of every case of sexual assault which comes before the court.
11. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, http://www.judis.nic.in 22/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014 particularly where a large number of accused are involved. It must, further, be borne in mind that the broad principle is that an injured witness was present at the time when the incident happened and that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actuals assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration. having due regard in our mind to the above mentioned settled position in law, we have assessed the entire material on record meticulously.”
18.Considering the principle of law enunciated by the apex Court, it is evident that the same squarely applied to the case at hand and inasmuch as the evidence of the victim girl is not supported by the medical evidence and the case projected by the victim girl is also found to be highly improbable and unlikely to happen and also considering the surrounding suggestion as above discussed, in all, the prosecution case cannot be sustained based on the unreliable and unacceptable solitary evidence of the victim girl.
19.In the light of the abovesaid discussions, I hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable http://www.judis.nic.in 23/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014 doubt and as the prosecution case is beset with serious doubts, failings, lacunae, shortcomings and when with reference to the same, no plausible explanation is forthcoming on the part of the prosecution to dispel the same in any manner, in my considered opinion, the benefit of doubt emerging from the same should be extended in favour of the accused. For the reasons aforestated, I hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges levelled against the accused and consequently, acquit the accused of the offences put forth against him under Sections 376 & 417 IPC.
20.In conclusion, the impugned judgment dated 08.08.2014 passed in S.C.No.190 of 2013 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahalir NeethiMandram, Chennai, convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused under Sections 376 & 417 IPC are set aside and the accused is acquitted of the offences under Section 376 & 417 IPC and accordingly, the criminal appeal preferred by the accused is allowed. Bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant/Accused shall stand cancelled and fine amount paid by the appellant/accused is ordered to be refunded to him.
16.07.2020 Index : Yes / No http://www.judis.nic.in 24/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014 Internet : Yes / No sms To
1.State rep.by:Inspector of Police, N-1 Royapuram Police Station, Chennai.
2.The MahalirNeethiMandram, Chennai.
T.RAVINDRAN, J.
sms Pre-delivery Judgment made inCrl.A.No.465 of 2014 http://www.judis.nic.in 25/26 Crl.A.No.465 of 2014 16.07.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 26/26