Senthil @ Radhakrishnan vs State By Inspector Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 25119 Mad

                                                                                Crl.R.C.No.469 of 2014

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 21.12.2021

                                                         CORAM :

                      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
                                                   Crl.R.C.No.469 of 2014

                Senthil @ Radhakrishnan                                                .. Petitioner

                                                          Versus

                State by Inspector of Police,
                All Women Police Station,
                Vridhachalam,
                Cuddalore District.
                (Crime No.6 of 2002)                                           .. Respondent

                Prayer : Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.,
                to call for the records of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
                Cuddalore at Vridhachalam made in C.A.No.17 of 2013 and set aside the
                judgment passed by him dated 28.03.2014 by confirming the conviction and
                sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore District
                made in C.C.No.113 of 2004 by judgment dated 12.06.2013 convicting the
                appellant/petitioner herein under Section 417 of I.P.C and sentencing him to
                undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment.

                                  For Petitioner      : Mr.L.Mahendran

                                  For Respondent     : Mr.L.Baskaran
                                                Government Advocate
                                                (Criminal Side)




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/11
                                                                                Crl.R.C.No.469 of 2014

                                                      ORDER

This Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused, aggrieved by the

judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vridhachalam in C.C.No.113

of 2004, dated 12.06.2013, whereby the petitioner was convicted for an offence

under Section 417 of Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of one year and the judgment of the learned III

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vridhachalam in Crl.A.No.17 of 2013,

dated 28.03.2014, thereby, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by

the Trial Court.

2. On 23.11.2002, P.W.1, Jeyanthi went to the All Women Police Station,

Vridhachalam and lodged a complaint stating that the first accused namely

Senthil @ Radhakrishnan at about a week before the lodging of the complaint,

took her to the rear side of his house and by promising that he will marry, had

physical intercourse and thereafter, refused to marry. In the village panchayat

conducted, he agreed to marry. But, however, the accused Nos.2 and 3, the

parents of the first accused and the accused No.4, the brother of the first

accused, by demanding dowry, refused to perform the marriage and stopped the

marriage and hence, she gave the complaint.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.469 of 2014

3. Upon complaint of P.W.1, a case in Crime No.6 of 2002 was registered

and P.W.1 namely, the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station took the

case for investigation and filed a final report on 26.01.2003, proposing all the

four accused guilty for the offence under Section 417 of Indian Penal Code and

Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was taken on file as C.C.No.113

of 2004 and upon issuance of summons, all the accused appeared before the

learned Magistrate and denied the charges and stood trial. Pending the trial,

A2, Rajavelu, the father of the first accused, had died.

4. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11, including the the defacto

complainant as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. Upon being questioned about

the material evidence on record and incriminating circumstances under Section

313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the charges. No

evidence was let in on behalf of the defence. The Trial Court, therefore, heard

the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the prosecution and the

learned Counsel for the accused and by a judgment, dated 12.06.2013 found

that the evidence of P.W.1 trustworthy and from her evidence, it was clear that

the first accused had represented to the victim that he will marry her and on the

strength of the same, he had intercourse with the victim and after five days, he

refused by stating that he will only marry the girl whom his parents would ask https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.469 of 2014

him to marry. Therefore, the Trial Court found that the first accused had

committed an offence under Section 417 of Indian Penal Code. However, the

Trial Court found that the prosecution did not establish the other charge under

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and acquitted all the four accused of the

said charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced the

first accused alone for the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C as indicated

above.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.17 of 2013 on

the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vridhachalam.

The first Appeallate Court, after independently appraising the evidence on

record, found that the written agreement in the panchayat, marked as Ex.P1,

would conclusively prove the evidence of P.W.1 that there was intercourse with

the promise of marriage. The Appellate Court also took into consideration the

corroboratory evidence of P.Ws.3, 4, 5 and 6 to depose about the panchayat

held in connection with the issue and therefore, would conclude that the said act

would constitute the offence punishable under Section 417 of Indian Penal Code

and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court,

aggrieved by which, the present Revision is laid before this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.469 of 2014

6. Mr.L.Mahendran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner, drawing the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W.1,

whereby, she stated that the first accused herein had come to her house and in

the guise of talking to her, took her to the rear side of his house. While, as per

the investigating officer i.e., P.W.11, she did not say so, during the enquiry.

Similarly, she had deposed that she resisted the intercourse and raised alarm.

P.W.11, investigating officer had admitted that such a statement was not made

during the course of investigation. Again, P.W.1, in her evidence, stated that,

immediately after hearing her alarm, her uncle came to the spot and warned

both of them and took them to the panchayat. The investigating officer had

made clear that such a statement was not made during the course of

investigation, while recording her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. This

apart, the learned Counsel also brought to the notice of this Court about Crime

No.105 of 2008, whereby, he has alleged that he has forcibly taken away by

the members of P.W.1's family and therefore, Ex.P1 was forcibly extracted from

him. By looking into all these contradictions, the learned Counsel would urge

this Court to come to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1 is totally

unbelievable as there was no promise to marry and the entire issue itself is

doubtful and therefore, urged this Court to upturn the conclusions of the Trial

Court and lower Appellate Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.469 of 2014

7. Mr.L.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

appearing on behalf of the prosecution would submit that P.W.1, in her

evidence, had clearly deposed about the promise being made and thereafter, the

refusal of the first accused to marry her. There is no ground to suspect the

veracity or genuineness of evidence of P.W.1. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.1

is corroborating with Ex.P1, a panchayat agreement, written in the local village

panchayat and also the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 6, who conducted the panchayat.

Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is enough to convict the accused. In this case

overwhelming evidence is available and corroboratory materials would prove the

offence punishable under Section 417 of I.P.C beyond any doubt whatsoever

and therefore, he would submit that no ground is made out merely basing on the

contradictions which are not fatal to the case of prosecution.

8. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side. I have

gone through the material evidence on record. The primary contention of the

learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner are that the victim i.e., P.W.1 had

made embellishment in her evidence as if she resisted the intercourse and raised

the alarm which was not even her case during the investigation. Even agreeing

with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that P.W.1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.469 of 2014

had made improvements in her original version and that there is contradiction,

the same will not in any manner be a material contradiction because the issue

in this case is not as to whether there was resistance or not. This is not a case

under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, but the accused is convicted for the

offence under Section 417 of Indian Penal Code. On the other hand, these

allegations and the other allegations that the parents and family members of

P.W.1, the victim had, in fact, forcibly taken the first accused and the first

accused gave the complaint to the Police Station would only fortify the act that

the accused had intercourse with P.W.1 with the promise to marriage.

Therefore, even though I am able to see the contradictions in the evidence of

P.W.1, in my considered view, these contradictions are not material to the

offences under Section 417 of Indian Penal Code, for which, the accused is

convicted. Therefore, I am not in a position to accept the submissions made on

behalf of the petitioner/accused that this Court should interfere in the exercise of

its revisional jurisdiction and accordingly, I confirm the conviction imposed by

the Trial Court, which is confirmed by the lower Appellate Court.

9. Alternatively, the learned Counsel would submit that the occurrence

took place in the year 2002. At that relevant point of time, the accused was 23

years of age. Now, almost 20 years have gone by the accused and the accused https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.469 of 2014

had since moved in life and is married and is living law abiding life. It is also

represented by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that P.W.1 has also

thereafter got married to a third person and is leading happy married family life.

Under these circumstances, he would submit that in view of the efflux of time to

make the accused to undergo the sentence for a period of one year would be

excessive and not fitting for the circumstances of the case.

10. The victim was impleaded as second respondent in this case. She had

given a statement addressed to the Inspector of Police, All Women Police

Station, Vridhachalam that she is living a happy married life subsequently and

that she does not want any compensation or relief whatsoever from the accused

and that she does not want to participate in the proceedings in any manner

whatsoever further before this Court.

11. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would confirm the

facts that both of them are since married and are living with their families in the

same locality. There is no other antecedent as against the petitioner/accused.

Considering all the above observations and considering the certificate issued by

the Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Vridhachalam, dated 26.11.2021 that the

petitioner/accused was in jail from 23.11.2002 till 04.12.2002 i.e., for a period https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.469 of 2014

of 12 days; Considering the fact that both the persons are living in the same

locality, continuing the sentence of the accused would also have an

impact/embarrassment to the victim I am inclined to interfere with the sentence

by reducing the imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court and the lower

Appellate Court from a period of one year to that of the period already

undergone by the petitioner.

12. The Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed, as indicated above.

21.12.2021

Index : yes/no Speaking order grs

To

1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam.

2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vridhachalam.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

4.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Vridhachalam, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.469 of 2014

Cuddalore District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.469 of 2014

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

grs

Crl.R.C.No.469 of 2014

21.12.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis