Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently. A compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded to the victim girl to be paid by the Government.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3. The facts leading to the filing of this case are as under:
3.1. The case of the prosecution is that the victim (prosecutrix) is a 13 year old minor girl who was paralysed by polio and could not stand or walk without support. The victim girl is residing at Harijana Colony, Kittampalayam Panchayat, Karumathampatty, along with her father Viz., Rangan and mother viz., Valliammal. On 20.08.2012, her mother's paternal uncle died who was residing in the same street, just ten houses beside the victim's house. All the three persons attended the death ceremony. At that time, the victim was hungry and wanted to take some food and so, she went to her house alone. About 4.00 p.m., while she was watching TV the accused known to the victim and her family persons came into the house and asked the TVS 50 key to go to Karumathampatty and so the victim went into the room to take the TVS 50 key. The accused followed her and locked the door and thereafter, raped her. The victim attempted to shout but the accused placed a cloth and closed her mouth with one hand and she was not able to make any sound. Further, she being a polio attacked paralysis person, was unable to resist the accused from committing the crime. Shortly, the victim's mother viz., Valliammal entered into the house, and found that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ her daughter was raped by the accused. The accused immediately prostrated at her feet pleaded to excuse him. Then, he ran away from the house. Then the victim's mother informed her husband. After the completion of death ceremony of victim's grandfather, on the next day, her father viz., Rangan (P.W.1) gave the complaint before the Karumathampatti police (Ex.P.1).
6.Heard Mr.B.Kumarasamy learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.K.Prabhakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7. In this case, the appellant/ accused is alleged to have raped a polio affected physically paralysed 13 year old minor girl. We have three crucial witnesses in this case. The first and foremost is the evidence of victim girl (P.W.2) and then the evidence of her father and mother (P.W.1 and P.W.3). We have gone through their evidence carefully. (P.W.2) victim girl clearly narrated the incident. She deposed her date of birth is 22.06.1999. She studied at Kittampalayam Government School up to VIII standard. Thereafter, she joined Government School, continued her IX standard. Due to her physical problem, she could not continue her studies, her parents are daily labourers and the accused is known to them. On 20.08.2012, her grandfather (mother's paternal uncle) died and all of them were attending death ceremony at about 4.00 p.m. Since she felt hungry, she went to the house alone. After taking some food she was watching TV. At that time, the accused entered into the house asking her to give TVS 50 key and she went into the room to take the key. The accused followed her, closed the door and raped her. She being handicapped was unable to resist the accused. The accused closed her mouth with a cotton cloth. Therefore, she was unable to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ shout and unable to resist. Shortly, her mother (P.W.3) Valliammal came into house and found the victim. Immediately the accused prostrated at her mother's feet and pleaded to excuse him. Thereafter, he ran away from the house. P.W.3 immediately met her husband (P.W.1) and informed the incident. After completion of death ceremony, next day, they went to police station and (P.W.1) Rangan, father, gave the complaint to Ex.P1. Therefore, the evidence of the victim girl clearly indicates that the accused was having acquittance with the family of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and he was not a stranger and the incident took place on the date of death of victim girl's grandfather. The incident is alleged to have taken place about 4.30 p.m., on 20.08.2012 when all had assembled at death house for cremation which is little away from house of the victim girl. In such situation one cannot be expected to go to police station and give complaint immediately. Therefore, on the next day P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 went to police station and gave complaint. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, there was no delay in lodging the FIR. Further, it has no bearing on the truthfulness of the prosecution case. The principle stated by the Supreme Court in Jugendra Singh vs Uttar Pradesh [2012 6 SCC https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 297] that delay has no bearing on the case of the prosecution inasmuch as rustic and uneducated villagers could not have been precise on the time concept has to be applied to this case. It is a settled principle of law that delay per se in lodging the FIR cannot be held fatal to the prosecution. The entire idea behind lodging the prompt FIR is that spontaneous and earliest version without influence and without any extraneous factors must reach the police and the Area Magistrate, otherwise the chances of false witnesses and tainted evidence can be there. Delay /non-delay in lodging the FIR is a relative term and it depends upon facts of each case. There cannot be any generalisation that whenever there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the prosecution case becomes suspect. Whether delay is so long as to throw a cloud of suspicion on the prosecution case, would depend upon the facts of each case. Even a long delay can be condoned if the witnesses have no motive of implicating the accused and have given a plausible reason as to why the report was lodged belatedly. In the instant case, this has been done.