Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.P.W.8/Dr.Suresh, Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Rajapalayam, had examined the accused and issued the medical report under Ex.P5. On the basis of the direction given by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, he had issued potency certificate under Ex.P6. After medical examination, P.W.10, the Inspector of Police had altered the case and issued alteration report to the learned Judicial Magistrate. He examined the wife of the accused/Rajeswari/P.W.4 and recorded her statement. He also went to the school where the victim girl studied and obtained age certificate from the Head Master of the school/P.W.6 regarding the age of the minor girl under Ex.P2. He had examined P.W.7 and P.W.8, who had examined the accused and minor girl and issued the medical report and recorded their statements. He had also examined the police officials who had accompanied the accused and the victim girl to the Government Hospital, Rajapalayam, to secure medical report regarding the medical test under Ex.P4, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. After procuring the medical certificate from P.W.7 and P.W.8 and after procuring the medical report of the minor girl, P.W.10 had arrived at a conclusion that the accused herein had sexual intercourse with the minor girl. Therefore, the case was altered to offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. He laid the charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, on taking cognizance of the final report filed by P.W.10, had committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Srivilliputtur. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ On receipt of the records and on appearance of the accused, the learned Principal Sessions Judge had numbered the case as S.C.No.87 of 2010 and made over the case to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Srivilliputtur and bound over the accused to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Srivilliputtur.

17.The main point of attack of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) is that the contention that since the victim girl was not available, the findings given by the learned Trial Judge that the charges against the accused under Sections 376 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ and 366(A) of I.P.C., had been proved is not sustainable. The contention of the appellant that the learned trial Judge had not appreciated the evidence as per the Indian Evidence Act also cannot be accepted. Whether the victim was alive or not alive, P.W.10, the Inspector of Police, who is the first Investigation Officer is competent to speak about the evidence given by the victim girl under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code. He had recorded the statement of the victim girl when she was secured along with the accused at Seithur Bus Stand and subjected to judicial process of forwarding her to the medical examination through the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate to determine her age, medical examination regarding sexual intercourse and also subjecting the accused after remand of the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate to medical examination regarding his potency on request of P.W.10. Accordingly, P.W.7/Dr.Uma Maheswari had examined the victim and issued Ex.P4. She had in her evidence clearly stated that on examination by the doctor, the victim had admitted that she had sexual intercourse with the accused. P.W.7-Dr.Uma Maheswari in her report under Ex.P4 had clearly stated that the hymen was ruptured. It is pertinent to note that the accused was arrested and the victim was secured in the company of the accused. Therefore, the accused cannot claim that he did not have sexual intercourse with her. It is also to be presumed that from the date on which the minor girl was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ missing from the custody of the parents/P.W.1 and P.W.2, after lodging the complaint under Ex.P1, the registration of the case under Ex.P7 and till the victim was secured in the company of the accused and on the date of his arrest by P.W.10, the Inspector of Police, they had been together. Therefore, there is a strong presumption in favour of the prosecution that except the accused no one had access to have sexual intercourse with the victim minor girl.

21.Under those circumstances, the arguments regarding the non appreciation of evidence as per the Indian Evidence Act by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Srivilliputtur, has to be rejected. The learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Srivilliputtur, had appreciated the materials available before him and assessed it accordingly. The learned Sessions Judge had acted on the evidence of P.W.10, who had mentioned about the 161 statement recorded from the victim/prosecutrix, which is treated as direct evidence by the victim to the police officer. Further proof of the same is also available through the evidence of P.W.7 under Ex.P4, the report of the Dr.Uma Maheswari, who had examined the status of the victim along with same the evidence of P.W.8, who medically examined the accused and who had given potency certificate. Therefore in all these circumstances, there are sufficient materials available before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Srivilliputtur to arrive a safe conclusion that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ charges against the accused under Sections 366(A) and 376 of I.P.C., have been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, there is no perverse findings available before this Court to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Srivilliputtur to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by him.

29.There is further proof available to the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, through the evidence of P.W.7/Dr.Uma Maheswari and P.W. 8/Suresh, who had issued the medical report under Ex.P4, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. P.W.7 recorded that the hymen is ruptured and the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse. Further materials from P.W.8, who examined the accused and issued medical report under Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 regarding the potency. He had stated that accused is potent to have sexual intercourse.