Madras High Court
Robert Anthony Raj vs State Represented By on 13 December, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.1690 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.12.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.R.C.No.1690 of 2016
Robert Anthony Raj ... Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Sirkazhi, Nagapattinam District.
(Crime No.2 of 2008) ... Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 Cr.P.C.,
praying to set aside the judgment dated 21.04.2016 made in Crl.Appeal
No.3 of 2014 on the file of the Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Mahila Court)
Nagapattinam, in confirming the Judgment dated 08.01.2014 made in
C.C.No.117 of 2009, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sirkazhi,
Nagapattinam District.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging the
judgment dated 21.04.2016 passed in Crl.Appeal No.3 of 2014 by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1690 of 2016
Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Mahila Court) Nagapattinam, confirming the
judgment dated 08.01.2014 passed in C.C.No.117 of 2009 by the Judicial
Magistrate, Sirkazhi.
2. The first accused is the revision petitioner herein.
3. The revision petitioner and P.W.1 victim woman were in love with
each other for 3 years prior to the complaint; during that time, the revision
petitioner compelled P.W.1 to have sexual intercourse with him; when she
refused, he convinced her that he would marry her; on the said assurance, he
ravished her and this had occurred repeatedly; because of that P.W.1 got
conceived; even thereafter, he was continuously giving assurance that he
would marry her and protracted time; in the meanwhile, P.W.1 had also
given birth to a male child on 13.04.2008; subsequent to the birth of the
child, P.W.1 was humiliated and threatened by A2 & A3 (parents of the first
accused); after the child was born, the revision petitioner disowned his very
paternity to the child; thereafter, P.W.1 has preferred this complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1690 of 2016
4. On the complaint given by P.W.1, a case was registered by P.W.15
– Inspector, Senthamarai in Crime No.2 of 2008 under Sections 294(b),
506(2) IPC and 417 r/w 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of
Women Act. P.W.15 – Inspector, took up the case for investigation, went to
the place of occurrence, prepared observation Mahazar and rough sketch in
the presence of witnesses, examined some of the witnesses and sent the
victim and the accused individually for medical examination. P.W.16 –
Shanmugam had produced the victim, the accused and the child born to
P.W.1 on the order of the Court for taking their blood sample for DNA test
and got DNA test done for them. P.W.17 – Murugavel, continued the
investigation and re-examined the witnesses and thereafter, P.W.19 –
Thamilselvam examined the expert who has done the DNA test and
completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused
under Sections 294(b), 506(2) and 417 IPC r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.
5. After the case was taken on file and on perusal of the materials
available on record and having satisfied of the prima facie case, the learned
trial Judge framed the charges against the accused for the offences under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1690 of 2016
Sections 294(b), 506(2) and 417 IPC r/w Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. When the accused were
questioned, they pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial
was conducted.
6. During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, 19
witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.19 and 13 documents were
marked as Exs.P1 to P13. On the side of the defence, no witness was
examined and no document was marked.
7. At the conclusion of the trial and on consideration of the materials
available on record, the learned trial Judge convicted the first accused as
under:-
S.No. Provisions under which Sentence
convicted
1 Section 417 of IPC One year Simple Imprisonment
and Rs.50,000/- as compensation
to P.W.1
8. Aggrieved over the above said judgement, the first accused has
preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Nagapattinam and that was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1690 of 2016
also dismissed by confirming the judgement of the trial Court. Aggrieved
over that, the first accused has filed this present revision case.
9. The fact that P.W.1 and the revision petitioner were in love with
each other was not denied.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/first accused
and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the
respondent State.
11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/first accused
submitted that there is a delay in lodging the complaint and the revision
petitioner did not have any intention to cheat P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1
would show that he has not given any false assurance and that the Courts
below have not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective and hence,
this criminal revision has to be allowed.
12. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for
the respondent State submitted that the paternity of the child itself has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1690 of 2016
proved through the DNA test (Ex.P13); the DNA test shows that the first
accused is the father of the child born to P.W.1; the Courts below have
rightly appreciated the evidence on record. Hence, this revision case has to
be dismissed.
13. Points for consideration:-
Whether the conviction and sentence of the accused for the offence
under Section 147 IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate based on the
materials available on record is fair and proper?
14. The fact that the first accused was known to P.W.1 was not in
dispute. They were loving each other for quite sometime. During that
course, it was alleged by P.W.1 that she was compelled to have sexual
intercourse with the accused and when she refused, he would assure that he
would marry her. In view of the said assurance, P.W.1 was made to fulfil
the sexual intention of the revision petitioner. Since the occurrence have
been repeated for quite sometime that resulted in the pregnancy of P.W.1.
Even thereafter, P.W.1 was continuously requesting the first accused to
marry her but for which, the first accused refused. He has not only refused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1690 of 2016
but even refused his very paternity for the child. From the DNA test report
(Ex.P13), it is established before the Court that the first accused is the father
of the male child born to P.W.1 on 13.04.2008.
15. So the above facts would unfailingly prove the involvement of the
revision petitioner in cheating P.W.1 by giving false assurance of marriage.
Despite there is delay in filing the complaint that is not fatal to the case of
the prosecution and this is especially so when there is no change in the
paternity of the child born to the victim. The consent of P.W.1 was obtained
by the first accused on the assurance of marriage. Thereafter, he did not
have the mind to honour his promise, she had to deliver a child even before
marriage. In view of that P.W.1 has become an unwed mother. It is
needless to tell that the life of P.W.1 would be horrible. Despite the accused
was proved to be the father of the child born to P.W.1, he continued to
contest the case and took up the case on appeal and thereafter, filed this
Criminal Revision Case. Such conduct of the first accused would show that
he has no remorse for what he has done but was protracting the matter as per
his wishes.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1690 of 2016
16. Because of the false assurance given by the first accused, P.W.1
was influenced to give her consent to the first accused and allowed him to
cause irreparable damage to her physical and mental integrity. So the loss
sustained by P.W.1 on the false assurance given by the first accused is
evident through the birth of the child also. The conduct of the first accused
in refusing to marry P.W.1 after the child was born, would show that he did
not have intention of not honouring his promise from the very inception. So
the criminal intention of the accused is writ large from his conduct and
hence, the Courts below are right in finding the accused guilty for the
offence under Section 417 of IPC. Hence, I find no factual or legal
infirmity and does not warrant any interference.
17. The learned trial Judge awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation to
be payable by the petitioner and it is said to have been paid but the
sufferings and loss undergone by P.W.1 is something irreparable and that
cannot be compensated with the amount of Rs.50,000/-. P.W.1 has got the
burden to bring up his son and she also faces the embarrassment in the
society where she needs to live. She does not seem to be economically
sound also to support herself and the child. Taking into consideration of all
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1690 of 2016
these factors, I feel that P.W.1 has to be reasonably compensated under the
Women Victim Compensation Scheme.
In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and the
judgment dated 21.04.2016 passed in Crl.Appeal No.3 of 2014 by the
Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Mahila Court) Nagapattinam is confirmed.
13.12.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Sni
To
1.The Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Mahila Court),
Nagapattinam,
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Sirkazhi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1690 of 2016
R.N.MANJULA.,J.
Sni
Crl.R.C.No.1690 of 2016
13.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
