Madras High Court
Rajkumar vs The State Represented By on 26 February, 2021
Crl.A.No.524 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.A.No.524 of 2019
Rajkumar ... Appellant
Vs.
The State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Cheyyar,
Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondent
(Crime No.13 of 2015)
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. to set aside
the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court,
Thiruvannamalai in S.C.No.30 of 2016, dated 01.08.2019.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Thangavel
For Respondent : Mr.R.Suryaprakash
Government Advocate
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.524 of 2019
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment of Conviction
and Sentence, dated 01.08.2019 made in S.C.No.30 of 2016, by the learned
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai.
2. The respondent-police has registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2015
against the appellant for the offences under Sections 4 and 8 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity “the POCSO Act”). After
investigation, laid a charge sheet. Since the offence committed against the
child, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai
taken the case on file in Special S.C.No.30 of 2016. After completing the
formalities, framed the charges against the appellant for the offences
punishable under Sections 4 and 8 of POCSO Act and conducted the trial.
3. After considering the evidence on record and hearing on either side,
the learned Judge, by judgment dated 01.08.2019, convicted the appellant for
the offence punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to
undergo seven years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.524 of 2019
default to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment and for the offence
punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act, sentenced him to undergo 3 years
Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo
three months Simple Imprisonment.
4. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction dated 01.08.2019, the
appellant / accused had preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this
Court.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
occurrence was alleged to have taken place on 14.08.2015, whereas, the
complaint was lodged only on 15.10.2015, after two months. The delay in giving
the complaint has not been properly explained, which is fatal to the case of the
prosecution. He would further submit that both the appellant and the victim girl
are close relatives and since the parents of the appellant refused the appellant
to marry the victim girl, and there was also previous enmity between them with
regard to civil dispute, they foisted such a false case against the appellant. He
would further submit that the victim girl during her evidence deposed that the
occurrence was said to have taken place on 14.08.2015, whereas, in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.524 of 2019
complaint given by P.W.1-the father of the victim girl, no date of occurrence
has been mentioned and even the statement given by the victim girl, which was
recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she
has not stated the date of occurrence and there is no consistency in her
statement and there are material contractions. The learned counsel
would further stated that though the victim girl informed the occurrence to her
parents on 10.10.2015, but the complaint was given only on 15.10.2015, only
after 5 days and the delay has not been properly explained and even no
independent witnesses were examined in this case. The victim girl has stated
that on the date of occurrence, when she was in the house, his brother and
sister were available and at that time, the appellant came and had sexual
intercourse with her, whereas, her brother and sister, have not been examined
as a witness, which is also fatal to the case of the prosecution. Hence, the
learned counsel prays for setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by
the learned Judge.
6. The learned Government Advocate for the respondent-Police would
submit that at the time of occurrence, the victim girl was only aged 17 years
and she is close relative to the appellant. The appellant and the victim girl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.524 of 2019
loved each other and on 14.08.2015, when the parents of the victim girl had
gone to Chennai to visit grandfather of the victim girl, who was admitted at
Hospital due to an accident, at that time, the victim girl and her younger sister
and brother were only in the house, the appellant telephoned the victim girl and
after the brother and sister of the victim girl slept, the accused came at 11.30
p.m. and though the victim girl resisted and refused, the appellant had forcibly
undergone sexual intercourse with the victim girl and left in the midnight at
about 1.00 a.m. After that on 10.10.2015, when the victim girl was in the
college, the appellant took the victim girl to Vandalur and came into residence
late hours, and on the said date, when her father enquired, she revealed that
they are loving each other and also stated that when their parents had gone to
Chennai, the appellant came to the house and had sexual intercourse with her.
During cross-examination, the victim girl had clearly stated that on 14.08.2015,
the appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. During the statement
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she has clearly stated that during August
2015, the appellant had sexual intercourse with her and further, the Doctor also
opined that on examination of the victim girl, she found that her hymen was not
intact and she was subjected to sexual intercourse. Even during the defense
witness, the brother of the accused, who was examined D.W.1 admitted that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.524 of 2019
the appellant took the victim girl to Beach, and roamed here and there.
Therefore, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and
there is no merit in the Appeal and the learned Judge rightly appreciated the
evidence of the prosecution, and convicted the appellant.
7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
placed on record.
8. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.10.2015, when the victim girl
returned to home late hours, the father of the victim girl questioned, she
revealed that she went to Vandaloor Zoo along with the accused and he would
marry her with consent of his parents and it is also informed that both of them
were indulged in sexual intercourse and thereafter, the father of the victim girl
approached the parents of the accused and requested the accused to marry his
daughter, but the accused denied to marry her and therefore, he filed Ex.P1-
complaint before the Police. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer,
investigated the matter and laid a charge sheet before the learned Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.524 of 2019
9. On the side of the prosecution, 11 witnesses were examined as P.W.1
to P.W.11 and 12 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P12. 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, one
Rajasekar was examined as D.W.1 and no document was marked. The learned
Judge, 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.
10. Since this Court is an Appellate Court and also final Court of fact
finding, it has to re-appreciate the entire evidence and come to the
independent conclusion. The specific case of the prosecution is that the victim
girl is a minor, not completed the age of 18 years and on 14.08.2015, the
appellant had forcibly sexual intercourse with the victim girl and thereafter, she
informed the occurrence to her father and immediately, her parents had gone
to the appellant's residence and asked the appellant to marry her daughter, but
the appellant's family refused for the marriage and therefore, no other option,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.524 of 2019
the father of the victim girl preferred the complaint. In order to substantiate
the case, the victim child was examined as P.W.2. A reading of the entire
evidence of the victim girl, she has clearly deposed that when she was studying
in the Nursing College, they loved each other and also the appellant is a close
relative and they used to go to Vandalur and Mahaballipuram and on
14.08.2015, when the parents of the victim girl were not in house, the appellant
telephoned her and came to the house at 11.30 p.m. and had forcible sexual
intercourse with her and left home at 1.00 a.m.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that at the
time of occurrence her brother and sisters were present, but they were not
examined, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The victim girl has
clearly stated that at about 11.30 p.m., the appellant telephoned and he came
to her house and he left the home at 01.00 a.m. Thus, both the appellant and
the victim girl awaited a chance of brother and sister of the victim girl to fall
asleep, and after that only they had sexual intercourse. Therefore, non-
examination of the brother and sisters, said to have present at the time of
occurrence is not a fatal to the case of the prosecution, when the victim child
has not stated that brother and sisters knew about the arrival of the accused to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.524 of 2019
their house at night. It is not the case of the prosecution or the victim girl that
the appellant trespassed into the house and also had forcible sexual intercourse.
The victim girl herself has admitted that they loved each other and they used to
go to Vandalur and roam here and there and he has not done anything at that
time, but knowing fully well when her parents were not in the house, the
appellant came to the house at 11.30 p.m. and left on 1.00 a.m. Therefore,
they were waiting for a chance to be away from parents and the brother and
sister of the victim girl to fall asleep and further, the victim girl has not stated
that when the appellant came to her house, her brother and sister also saw
them, therefore, under the circumstances, mere non-examining the brother and
sister of the victim girl is not a fatal to the case of the prosecution.
12. The next contention of the learned counsel is that there was a delay
in filing complaint before the respondent-Police, which is fatal to the case of
the prosecution. During evidence, the victim girl has clearly stated that she
believed that the appellant would marry her and when the appellant came in
the midnight, though she had refused, the appellant had promised her to marry
her, therefore, believing the word of the appellant, she had accepted. On
10.10.2015, once again, the appellant called her to Vandalur and after that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.524 of 2019
when they arrived at late hours, her father had questioned the same and at that
time, she revealed. Thereafter, the parents of the victim girl had gone to the
house of the accused and asked the accused to marry her daughter, since the
appellant refused to marry her daughter, no other option, gave a complaint to
the Police. Therefore, mere informing the occurrence by the victim girl to her
parents after two months is not a fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further,
according to the learned counsel, after receiving information on 10.10.2015, the
father of the victim girl gave complaint only on 15.10.2015 which is also a fatal
to the case of the prosecution. Normally, when parents came to know that their
daughter last her virginity, they tried to mediate with the parents of the
accused, since the accused / appellant also close relative they tried to get
marry with the appellant and since they refused, no other option, filed a
complaint, therefore, the delay in filing the complaint is not fatal to the case of
the prosecution and that has been properly explained by the prosecution.
Further, P.W.1, the father of the victim girl has spoken that as soon as her
daughter revealed the fact that they love each other and the appellant had
undergone sexual intercourse, they had approached the appellant's family, but
the appellant refused to marry her daughter and therefore, he gave a
complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.524 of 2019
13. The Victim girl was also produced before the Medical Officer and the
Doctor, who examined the victim girl was examined as P.W.8 and she had
clearly stated that on examination of victim girl, she found that her hymen was
not intact and she was subjected to sexual intercourse and issued Ex.P6
Certificate.
14. Thereafter, the victim girl was produced before the learned
Magistrate for recording the statement under Section 164 (5) of Cr.P.C. Before
the learned Magistrate, the victim girl had clearly stated that in the month of
August 2015, when her parents were not in home, the accused called her and
came in the midnight and though she refused, the appellant forcibly had sexual
intercourse with her, by making false promise that he would marry her, and
subsequently, she revealed the same to her parents and when her parents
approached the family of the appellant, the appellant refused to marry her and
thereafter, her father made Ex.P1 complaint.
15. In order to prove the age of the victim girl, the prosecution has
marked Ex.P11-birth certificate of the victim girl. As per Ex.P11, birth
certificate, the date of birth of the victim girl is 12.01.1998 and the occurrence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.524 of 2019
said to have taken place on 14.08.2015, therefore, the victim girl was aged only
17 years at that time, and not completed 18 years. Therefore, she would fall
under the definition of Section 2 (1)(d) of POCSO Act. Therefore, the victim girl
is a child and the appellant had undergone penetrative sexual intercourse with
the victim child and the medical evidence and the statement recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. of the victim girl also proved the same. Even though the
statement recored under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., is not substantive evidence,
but it is admissible in evidence. The victim girl has stated during her statement
before the learned Magistrate that in the month of August 2015, when her
parents were not in home, the accused came to the home in the mid night and
had sexual intercourse with her. Therefore, the statement recorded under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has been substantiated by the victim by examining as
witness before the trial Court. Therefore, from the evidence of the victim girl
and the doctor evidence and also the statement recorded under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C., the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. In
cases of this nature, presence of eyewitnesses are mostly improbable. If the
evidence of sole witness is cogent, credible and trustworthy, conviction is
permissible.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.524 of 2019
16. This Court, a perusal of the entire records independently comes to
the conclusion that the appellant has committed the offence under Section 3 of
POCSO Act, which is punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act. But, however,
the other charges framed under Section 354 and 376 of IPC, the learned Sessions
Judge gave a finding that Sections 354 and 376 of IPC have not been made out
and however, the learned Judge convicted the appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Admittedly, there was no charge
framed against the appellant under Section 7 of POCSO Act, and gave a
maximum sentence of 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 4 of
POCSO Act and both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Therefore,
the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judge, under Section 8 of
POCSO Act, is liable to be est-aside.
17. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai for the offence
punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act, is set aside. The conviction and
sentence passed for the offence punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act,
is confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.524 of 2019
18. With the above modification, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
26.02.2021
Speaking Order / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No.
Internet : Yes.
rns
To
1. The Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Mahila Court,
Thiruvannamalai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Cheyyar,
Thiruvannamalai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.524 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
rns
Crl.A.No.524 of 2019
26.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
