Madras High Court
Miss.Valarmathi vs State By Inspector Of Police on 25 February, 2022
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
Crl.A.No.494 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
Criminal Appeal No.494 of 2019
Miss.Valarmathi ... Petitioner/Defacto complainant
Versus
1.State by Inspector of Police,
Udaiyarpalayam Police Station,
Udaiyarpalayam.
(Crime No.78/2008) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Rajadurai
3.Sundaram ... Respondents 2 and 3/
Accused 1 and 2
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 r/w 401(5) of Criminal Procedure
Code, to set aside the order of acquittal dated 23.09.2014 made in S.C.No.47
of 2012 by the learned Principal District Judge (Fast Track Mahila Court)
Ariyalur and allow this Criminal Appeal petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar
For R1 : Mr.L.A.J.Selvam,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 and R3 : Mr.K.Rahul
for Mr.K.Thenrajan
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.494 of 2019
ORDER
This appeal is preferred by the alleged victim of the offence in which she challenges the judgement of the trial court acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 376 of IPC .
2.The case of the prosecution gets unfolded Vide Ex.P.1 complaint dated 30.04.2008 on the basis of which, Ext.P.6. FIR was registered by P.W.13, Sub Inspector of Police. The prosecution case is that the second respondent/A1 has married the cousin of P.W.1, the victim, that P.W.1 is unmarried, and owns extensive properties, that A1 proposed to marry her for the properties she owned, that P.W.1 refused the same, and that on 27.11.2007 at about 9.00 p.m when P.W.1 along with her elder sister, P.W.2, were watering their fields, A1 and A2 came there, held out threat with a knife and tied P.W.1's hands from behind and also tied her mouth with a towel, put her in a motor cycle and took her to place called Monnuzhi village, where she was forced to stay in the house of a certain Palaniammal, where A1 committed rape on P.W.1. Then on the following morning (28.11.2007) he took P.W.1 in a Tata Sumo to a farm of A1's relation in Pennedam, where he again raped her. In the Page 2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.494 of 2019 meantime, P.W.2 had preferred a complaint to the police, on coming to know of which, A1 had dropped P.W.1 on the road side, somewhere in Jayamkondan.
3.Upon Registering the FIR, P.W.14, the Investigating officer visited the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.7, Observation Mahazar in the presence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 and Ext.P8, rough sketch. He collected the statement. He also interrogated the various witnesses, which includes P.W.2, the elder sister of the victim and P.W.3, a neighbour.
4.The matter was committed to Sessions and the Sessions Court framed charges against the accused;
Accused Charges framed under Section
A1 368 and 376 IPC
A2 368 r/w 34 and 376 r/w 109
IPC
5.On appreciating the evidence before it, the trial Court did not believe the case of the prosecution and acquitted both A1 and A2. The line of reasoning of the learned Session Judge are:
➢ P.W.1 has not spoken anything about the alleged motive for her Page 3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.494 of 2019 abduction and rape. While, she makes a statement that A1 had abducted and raped her only for her properties, she was particularly silent when she testified before the Court.
➢ For the offence that was stated to have taken place on 27.11.2007, the complaint was preferred some six months later on 30.04.2008. In between, on 28.11.2007, the mother of P.W.1 is stated to have preferred a complaint. This was admitted even by the Investigating Officer, P.W.14. But neither the mother of P.W.1 was examined, nor the earlier complaint was produced or made available. In other words, there is suppression of an earlier complaint.
➢ According to P.W.1, she was first taken in a motor cycle for 15 k.m and thereafter in a cab for several kilometers. Even going by this statement, when she was abducted in a motor cycle, it is impossible that someone whose hands were tied from back, mouth stuffed with a towel could not have been spotted by anyone. Even, if this is missed, going by her version on the following morning, she was taken in a Tata Sumo, she did not any alarm.
➢ In her complaint, P.W.1 states that both A1 and A2 have raped her. The later line of her case is that only A1 raped her. Page 4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.494 of 2019 ➢ The witnesses are interested witnesses, and no witness at Mannuzhi or Pennadam were examined. In deed, not even P.W.1's mother was cited as a witness.
6.For an accused to be convicted on an appeal by the victim, the victim has to make a very strong case that leave no option for the Court except convicting the accused. Where evidentiary material probablizes a case for acquittal, it implies that a reasonable doubt has already arisen in the case of the prosecution. The list of grounds for disbelieving the case of the prosecution does raise some serious doubts about the credibility and believability of the prosecution case.
7.It is in this background, Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the trial Court went wrong in disbelieving P.W.1 about the explanation why she had to prefer a second compliant. In her testimony, she had explained that the earlier complaint was not acted upon by the police concerned and hence, she had moved the Human Rights Commission, and it was only thereafter, Ext.P.6, FIR came to be registered. He also added that when the victim's mouth was stuffed with a cloth and Page 5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.494 of 2019 hands were tied when she was abducted in the middle of the night, it will be too difficult for anyone to spot her. Law does not require a person to perform the impossibility, and since the offence had taken place in the pitch of darkness on a lonely lane, it is inconceivable that somebody would be there to spot it. Thirdly, the learned Sessions Judge went wrong in seeking a motive, for motive is only adds gravity to a crime, and its existence is not always mandatory.
8.Mr.K.Rahul, learned counsel for Mr.K.Thenrajan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3/A1 and A2 contended that the learned Sessions Judge has not digged up anything from her imagination, but considered the facts as proved by evidence on record. A mere possibility or plausibility of an alternate view is not adequate to reverse a finding of acquittal into conviction.
9.This Court carefully weighed rival submissions and also perused the records. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, which is outlined by this Court in paragraph 8 above, a possibility of an alternate view is inadequate to convert an aquittal into conviction. The Page 6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.494 of 2019 points involved are already stated, and they do not require a reiteration. There is nothing forthcoming from the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Sessions Judge had ignored any of the material evidence available on record or that her finding was perverse as to shake the conscience of the right thinking.
10. In conclusion this Court does not find any material to interfere with the judgement of the learned Sessions Court in S.C.No.47 of 2012, dated 23.092014, and hence this appeal is dismissed.
25.02.2022 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Tsg To The Principal District Judge, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Ariyalur.
Page 7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.494 of 2019 N.SESHASAYEE, J., Tsg Crl.A.No.494 of 2019 Page 8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.494 of 2019 25.02.2022 Page 9 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis