Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(b) The second charge was against A1 under Section 506(i) IPC, for committing the offence of criminal intimidation on the victim.
(c) The third charge was against both the accused for the offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (hereinafter referred to as JJ Act), for assaulting and for committing cruelty to child, by kicking her on the stomach and her back, for causing miscarriage of the foetus.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T. No.2 of 2022 & Crl.A. Nos.427 and 392 of 2023 2.14. When PW2 informed A2, the mother about the incident and asked her for support, A2 had ignored the same; that whenever A1 took the victim to the bathroom for assisting her in taking bath, A2 would peep into the bathroom to see if A1 was doing anything untoward; that during the 10 th public examination, the victim became pregnant and a urine test was taken at home with a kit; that when A1 and A2 found that the victim was pregnant, the mother /A2 had beaten A1; that thereafter, in order to cause miscarriage when the victim was fast asleep, A1 used to punch the victim on her stomach, make her lie in a prone position, pressed his stomach with full strength; that A1 also made her to eat papaya fruit to ensure miscarriage; that since none of them worked, A1 attempted to buy medicine for causing miscarriage; that since the medical stores refused to give medicine, A1 took A2 along with him and bought tablets saying that it was meant for A2; that A1 called one Kalaipriyan (not examined), the cousin brother of the victim and informed about the victim's pregnancy, due to his sexual assault and asked for his help; that the said Kalaipriyan had scolded A1 for misbehaving with his own daughter/victim; that thereafter, due to the tablets, there was a miscarriage and the victim started bleeding; that even thereafter, A1 is said https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.T. No.2 of 2022 & Crl.A. Nos.427 and 392 of 2023 to have abused the victim sexually on several occasions; that A2 was aware of the above acts of A1 and used to warn A1, however, A1 would abuse A2 and insisted on continuing his abuses; that unable to bear the torture further, PW2 had stated about the incidents to her classmate, who in turn asked PW2 to inform their teacher PW3 and that thereafter, on the phone call made by PW3 to the Child Helpline, the complaint was filed.

26. The only portion of PW2's evidence where there is reference to both A1 and A2, is purchasing a tablet for causing miscarriage. This is an improvement from the earliest version given by PW2 to the Doctor. We find from the statement made by the victim to Doctor-PW5, which is recorded in the Accident Register-Ex.P6 (which we have extracted earlier) that the victim had told the Doctor that her father bought the medicine for causing miscarriage and there is no reference to A2. Therefore, we find that A2's involvement in so far as administering tablets for miscarriage cannot be believed. We are unable to believe this portion of PW2's evidence, though we accept the other portions of her testimony. It is trite that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one respect, false in all) is not applicable in our country.