Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(f), 377 and 506 (ii) of IPC and sentenced to undergo varied period of sentences.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Appeal, are as follows:-

2.1. The victim is a minor girl aged about 11 years at the time of incident. She was studying VI Standard in St. Michael School, Gingee. The prosecution came to be launched against the Accused, at the instance of P.W-1, who is the uncle of the victim girl. According to P.W-1, on 22.01.2010 at about 5.00 p.m. he was standing in front of the Tea Stall next to State Bank of India in the road leading to Thiruvannamalai. At that time, he saw the victim girl riding pillion in the two wheeler driven by the Accused. When P.W-1 intended to question it, the two wheeler zipped past. P.W-1 was under the impression that the Accused would drop the victim girl in her house, enroute. However, on the same day his sister complained to P.W-1 that the Accused had taken the victim girl to the forest area in Valuppamparai, Saanikulam, Tiruvannamalai and committed sexual assault. Immediately, P.W-1 and his sister took the victim girl to Government Hospital, Gingee from where she was referred to Government General Hospital, Villupuram for better treatment. On 24.01.2010, P.W-1 had given a written complaint to Gingee Police Station based on which https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 11:38:56 am )  Criminal Appeal No.259 of 2016 the case in Crime No. 36 of 2010 was registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. Ex.P-13 is the First Information Report.

2.4. On receipt of the final report along with the relevant records, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee had taken the case on file as PRC. No.15 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 366, 506 (ii), 376 & 377 of IPC. The copies of records relied by the Prosecution were furnished to the Accused under Sections 207 of Cr.P.C. As the offence under Section 376 of IPC is triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee submitted the entire records to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 11:38:56 am )  Criminal Appeal No.259 of 2016 Villupuram under Sections 209 (a) of Cr.P.C., and the case was taken on file in the Principal Sessions Court, Villupuram as S.C.No.275 of 2012 and subsequently made over to the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram for disposal accordingly to law. After careful consideration of records, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 (2) (f), 377 and 506(ii) of IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the Accused in Tamil and the Accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was ordered. During trial, the Prosecution examined 17 witnesses as P.W-1 to P.W- 17 and marked 15 documents under Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-15 besides material objects as M.O-1 to M.O-3. On the side of the defense, the Accused examined himself as D.W-1 and marked two documents under Ex.D-1 & Ex.D-2. After hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram had convicted the Accused for the offence under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. For the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (f) of IPC the Accused was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 11:38:56 am )  Criminal Appeal No.259 of 2016 months. For the offence punishable under Section 377 of IPC the Accused was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. For the offence punishable under Section 506(ii) of IPC the Accused was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for fifteen days. The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It was also directed that the Accused is entitled to set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., 2.5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment dated 18.02.2016 passed in S.C. No. 275 of 2012, the Accused is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.

34. On perusal of the deposition of P.W-1, he had stated that he saw the Accused driving the motor cycle in which the victim girl was riding pillion. He further deposed that a few hours later, his sister, P.W-3 had stated that the Accused had committed rape on the minor victim girl. Therefore, P.W-1 to P.W-3 have proceeded to the Government Hospital, Gingee, from where, the victim girl was referred to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Villupuram. Thus, it is evidently clear that in his deposition as P.W-1, he had clearly stated that it was the Appellant/Accused who had abducted the minor victim girl in his two wheeler. However, the First Information Report in this case came to be registered only on 24.01.2010 at the instance of P.W-1. There is no worthy explanation forthcoming for the delay in registration of the First Information Report. Further, it is seen that immediately after the alleged occurrence, P.W-1 along with P.W-3 taken the victim to Gingee Government Hospital from where she was referred to Government Medical College Hospital, Mundiambakkam, Villupuram where Dr. Dhanalakshmi/P.W-14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 11:38:56 am )  Criminal Appeal No.259 of 2016 examined the victim and issued Ex.P-11. Ex.P-6 is the earliest document emanated soon after examination of the victim by the Doctor at Gingee Government Hospital/P.W-11. P.W-11 referred the victim girl to Government Medical College Hospital, Mundiambakkam, Villupuramm for detailed examination. He had issued an Accident Register under Ex.P-6 dated 22.01.2010 wherein it was stated that the victim was produced by her mother for medical examination by 8.45 pm.,

42. Above all, the Investigation Officer was cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the Accused. From the cross-examination of the Investigation Officer, it was found that there had been contradictions between the medical records. The earliest medical record under Ex.P-6 arises from Gingee Government Hospital. The medical records of the Government Medical College Hospital, Villupuram at Mundiambakkam discloses that the mother of the victim had informed the Doctor on duty at Government Hospital, Villupuram that the dress worn by the victim at the time of occurrence was handed over to the Police at Gingee Government Hospital. Also, in the same https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 11:38:56 am )  Criminal Appeal No.259 of 2016 record, it is stated that the Police came to Gingee Government Hospital and examined the victim. When P.W-16/Investigation Officer was confronted with those contradictions, he claims ignorance. He also was not sure as to under whose identification, the Rough Sketch and Observation Mahazar were prepared. This shows that after much deliberation, P.W-1 had ably framed the Appellant/Accused into this case.