Madras High Court
Shanmugam vs State By Inspector Of Police on 24 February, 2021
Crl.A.No.326 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.A.No.326 of 2019 &
Crl.M.P.No.8784 of 2020
Shanmugam ... Appellant
Vs.
State by Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
at Vridhachalam, ... Respondent
(Crime No.261 of 2015)
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. to set-aside
the conviction and sentence passed by Judgment in Spl.S.C.No.64 of 2018, on
the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore, by Judgment
dated 16.04.2019.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Rajakumar
Mr.M.Nallathambi
Legal Aid Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.R.Suryaprakash
Government Advocate
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.326 of 2019
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment of Conviction
and Sentence, dated 16.04.2019 made in Spl.S.C.No.64 of 2018, on the file of
the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore.
2. The respondent-Police registered a case against the appellant in Crime
No.261 of 2015, for the offences punishable under Sections 366 of IPC and under
Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (For brevity
"the POCSO Act). After the investigation, laid a charge sheet before the learned
Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore. On appearance of the appellant, the
provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., were complied with and the trial Court
framed charges for the offence under Section 366 of IPC and punishable under
Section 10 of POCSO Act, against the appellant and conducted the trial.
3. After considering the evidence on record and hearing on either side,
the learned Judge, by Judgment dated 16.04.2019, convicted the appellant for
the offence under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- in default
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.326 of 2019
to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years; and convicted and sentenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in
default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offence under
Section 10 of POCSO Act.
4. Challenging the said Judgment and Conviction, the accused /appellant
has preferred the present Appeal.
5. Since the learned counsel for the appellant was not present on
02.02.2021, this Court directed the Registry to appoint a Legal-Aid Counsel and
however, today, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Legal-Aid
Counsel appeared and argued the matter.
6. The learned counsel as well as Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant
would submit that the victim girl has stated that the occurrence said to have
taken place on 18.12.2015, at 6.30 p.m., however the complaint was given only
on 21.12.2015, whereas, P.W.9 Investigating Officer, in her evidence stated
that the accused was arrested in the morning itself viz., 21.12.2015, which
creates a doubt. No identification parade was conducted and there are material
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.326 of 2019
contractions in the complaint and the statement recorded under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C, and even in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the
victim girl has not stated that there was penetrative sexual assault and
subsequently, during evidence, she deposed that about penetrative sexual
assault by improvisation. There are material contractions in the eyewitness of
the prosecution witnesses, and the bike has not been recovered in this case, and
also the statement recorder under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was also not marked as
a document. Since the case against the appellant has no merit, the prosecution
has wrongly fixed the appellant, as accused. The prosecution has failed to
establish his case that the appellant had committed the offence, which warrants
interference.
7. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the victim girl
has clearly narrated the facts during her evidence. Though the Sub Inspector of
Police has wrongly mentioned the time instead of evening, as morning, the
appellant was caught hold by the witnesses, P.W.3 and P.W.4, and when they
heard the voice of the victim girl, came into the spot and enquired the victim
girl and when she revealed the occurrence, and they had beaten the accused
and thereafter, informed the father of the victim girl, who filed Ex.P1-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.326 of 2019
complaint. Therefore, since the appellant was caught-hold by the witnesses,
there was no need to conduct identification parade and there is no dispute of
identity and therefore, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt. Further, the defect in investigation is not a fatal to the case of the
prosecution. The appellant cannot claim innocence on the ground of the defect
in investigation. The learned Sessions Judge had rightly appreciated the entire
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellant. Therefore,
there is no perversity in the Judgment and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
9. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.12.2015, at about 06.30
p.m., while the victim girl was waiting for bus at Vilankattur Bus Stop and since
the bus did not come in time, the victim girl requested for lift from the
appellant, and however, the accused diverted the route and took her into
secluded place and asked the victim girl to remove her dresses and when she
refused to do, the accused beaten her and removed her dresses and tried to
rape her. When she shouted, the witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4 came into the spot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.326 of 2019
and rescued her and beaten the accused and informed the occurrence to the
father of the victim girl, and who later filed Ex.P1-complaint. Based on
which, the respondent-Police registered a case against the appellant.
Subsequently, the Investigating Officer, investigated the matter and laid a
charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore.
10. On the side of the prosecution, 9 witnesses were examined as P.W.1
to P.W.9 and 9 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9. After completion of
the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the incriminating circumstances
culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put before the
appellant, the same was denied as false and on the side of the defence, no oral
and documentary evidence was let in. The learned Sessions Judge, Mahila
Court, Cuddalore, after hearing the arguments on either side and considering all
the materials placed on record, found that the appellant is guilty and convicted
and sentenced, as referred above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.
11. Since this Court is an Appellate Court and also final Court of fact
finding, has to re-appreciate the entire evidence and come to the independent
conclusion. In this case, the victim girl was examined as P.W.2 and she has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.326 of 2019
clearly deposed that when she was waiting for bus in the bus stop, the appellant
was passing through the bus stop and she requested for lift and however, the
appellant diverted the route and took her into secluded place and asked her to
remove the dresses and when she refused to do so, she was beaten by the
accused and removed her dresses and misbehaved with her. After returning
from the place of occurrence, P.W.3, who is none other than the uncle of the
victim girl and P.W.4, noticed the victim girl along with the accused and when
they enquired, she revealed the fact that the accused took her to secluded
place and tried to misbehave with her and thereafter, they beaten the accused
and informed to the father of the victim girl through phone, and thereafter, he
made Ex.P1-complaint before the respondent-Police.
12. The victim was produced before the learned Magistrate for recording
statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Even though the statement was not
marked, in the immaterial records, the statement recorded under Section 164
of Cr.P.C was available, and however, no doubt, on appearance of the
appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and at that
time, all the copies of the documents were served to the appellant. A reading
of the Ex.P1-complaint made by the father of the victim girl and also statement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.326 of 2019
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. they have not stated anything about
about penetrative sexual assault, and it was stated that though the accused
tried to attempt penetrative sexual assault, P.W.3-uncle came and rescued her.
The doctor, who examined the victim girl was examined as P.W.7 deposed that
there was no marks of violence and the hymen was intact and issued Ex.P5
report stating that the victim girl is a virgin and no evidence of any recent
sexual abuse. The statement recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section
164 of Cr.P.C., clearly shows that the victim girl was not subjected to
penetrative sexual assault, and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge,
convicted appellant for the offence punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act.
13. Even though the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is
not substantive evidence and it can be used for corroboration, so far as
corroboration is concerned, the appellant took the victim girl and tried to
misbehave with the victim girl and the intention of sexual assault is proved.
Since the appellant was caught hold by P.W.3 and P.W.4-eyewitnesses, and who
informed the occurrence to the father of the victim girl over phone and
thereafter, he made a Ex.P1-complaint, and subsequently, the accused was
arrested and as such, conducting of identification parade does not arise in this
case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.326 of 2019
14. Though the learned counsel for the appellant submit that the
prosecution has wrongly fixed the appellant and there was a delay in filing the
complaint, a reading of the evidence of P.W.2-victim girl and P.W.3 and P.W.4-
eyewitness, they have clearly stated that the appellant was caught hold by
P.W.3 and P.W.4-eyewitnesses and they had also beaten him and subsequently
informed to the father of the victim girl through phone and thereafter, the
father of the victim girl filed Ex.P1-complaint. However, the delay in filing FIR,
may not be a sole ground to disallow or discard the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses. Mere wrong done by the prosecution or defect in the investigation,
also may not be a ground and the appellant cannot be entitled for acquittal on
that ground.
15. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to discard the
evidence of P.W.2, victim girl and evidence of P.W.2 was corroborated by P.W.3
and P.W.4.-eyewitnesss. A perusal of statement recorded under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C., it could be seen that the the accused kidnapped the victim girl and
tried to misbehave with sexual intention. When the victim girl raised alarm
P.W.3 and P.W.4 arrived the spot and rescued the victim girl and otherwise, the
appellant could have achieved his intention. Therefore, under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.326 of 2019
circumstances, as a fact finding Court, this Court re-appreciated the entire
evidence and come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the
offence punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act.
16. A reading of the entire materials and the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, it could be seen that the appellant had forcibly took the victim girl
into secluded place and seduced to illicit intercourse. Therefore, under the
circumstances, this Court finds that the appellant has committed the offence
which is punishable under Section 366 of IPC, and therefore, this Court does not
find any perversity in the judgment of conviction for the said offence.
17. Therefore, under the circumstances, this Court also finds that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond the reasonable doubt and there is no
reason to interfere with the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila
Court, Cuddalore.
18. However, the learned Sessions Judge imposed maximum punishment
prescribed by Section 10 of the POCSO Act and for the offence under Section 366
of IPC. In the considered view of this Court, the facts and circumstances of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.326 of 2019
case, if the substantive sentence is reduced to 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment
from 7 Years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section
10 of the POCSO Act and the substantive sentence is reduced to 7 years Rigorous
Imprisonment from 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under
Section 366 of IPC, will suffice to meet the ends of justice. In respect of
punishment in the form of fine, and the default clause, this Court finds no
reason to interfere with. The substantive sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment is
reduced to 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 10 of
POCSO Act and the substantive sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment is reduced to
7 years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 366 of IPC.
19. With the above modification, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.02.2021
Speaking Order / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No.
Internet : Yes.
rns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.326 of 2019
To
1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,
Cuddalore.
2.All Women Police Station,
at Vridhachalam,
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.326 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
rns
Crl.A.No.326 of 2019 &
Crl.M.P.No.8784 of 2020
24.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
