Pasuvalingam vs The State Represented By Its
2021 Latest Caselaw 6461 Mad

                                                                                  Crl.A.No.333 of 2020


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 11.03.2021

                                                     CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                                Crl.A.No.333 of 2020

                     Pasuvalingam                                             ... Appellant

                                                        -Vs-

                     The State Represented by its
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Kondalampatti, Womens Police Station,
                     Salem District.                                          ... Respondent

                     PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Code of
                     Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in S.C.No.193 of 2014 on the
                     file of the Mahalir Needhimandram, Salem District order dated
                     15.02.2018 and set aside the said conviction and sentence.

                               For Appellant    :    Mr.A.Jotheswaran,
                                                     Legal Aid Counsel

                               For Respondent   :    Mr.R.Suryaprakash,
                                                     Government Advocate [Crl. Side]

                                                       *****




                     Page No.1 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                Crl.A.No.333 of 2020


                                                   JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment of

conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir

Neethimandram, Salem in S.C.No.193 of 2014, dated 15.02.2018.

2.The respondent Police have registered a case in Crime No.1 of

2012, for offence under Sections 417, 376, 506(ii) of IPC against the

appellant on the complaint (Ex.P1) given by the victim girl (PW.1).

After completing investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet

before the learned Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila Court), Salem

and the same was taken on file as P.R.C.No.5 of 2014. Since the offence

is triable by the Court of Session, the learned Judicial Magistrate,

(Additional Mahila Court), Salem committed the case to the District and

Sessions Judge, Salem and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.193 of

2014. Thereafter, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Salem made

over the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram,

Salem for disposal.

3.After completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C.,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.333 of 2020

since there was a prima facie material to frame charges against the

appellant, the learned Sessions Judge farmed charge under Sections 366,

376(1), 506(ii) IPC.

4.After completing the trial and hearing the arguments advanced

on either side and also considering the oral and documentary evidence,

the trial Judge found the appellant guilty for offence punishable under

Sections 366, 376(i) and 506(i) of IPC and convicted and sentenced him

as follows:-

● For offence under Section 366 IPC, the appellant shall undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment.

● For offence under Section 376(i) IPC, the appellant shall undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment.

● For offence under Section 506(i) IPC, the appellant shall undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment.

5.Challenging the above said Judgment of conviction and

sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal before this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.333 of 2020

6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit

that the date of occurrence is 19.04.2011, at about 02.00 p.m., whereas

the complaint (Ex.P1) was lodged only on 24.01.2012. On the next day

of lodging the complaint, the victim girl was given birth to a male child.

The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that even

though the complaint (Ex.P1) has shown that it was written by the victim

girl (PW1), the mother of the victim girl (PW4) has stated that she gave

oral complaint to the Police and Police has reduced the same into writing

and therefore, there is contradiction even in lodging the complaint.

Further, the complaint given by the mother of the victim girl (PW4) has

not produced before the trial Court and hence, there was a suppression.

On the next day of lodging the complaint i.e., on 25.01.2012, the victim

girl has given birth to a male child. It is doubtful that being a girl, she

has not intimated her pregnancy to anyone for nine month. The victim

girl has stated that due to threat of the appellant, she did not inform the

penetrative sexual intercourse committed by the appellant. Even the

mother of the victim girl (PW4) has stated that she was not aware of the

occurrence and also as to whether her daughter was pregnant.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.333 of 2020

7.The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that it

is not believable that every month a girl normally after attaining puberty,

has to attend menses. But the victim girl has stated that she gave birth to

a male child on the next day of lodging the complaint (Ex.P1) that means

nine months after the occurrence. However, it is not believable that

either she would have intimated to her mother about the missing of

menses, or atleast consulted the Doctor or intimated to his close friends.

The victim girl has stated that she used to get menses once in three

months. It is not possible that if the victim girl was pregnant after the

occurrence, she would not have got menses once in three months. At the

time of giving the complaint (Ex.P1), the victim girl was already nine

months. Therefore, the victim girl voluntarily suppressed her pregnancy

and did not inform the same to anyone.

8.The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that

there are contradictions regarding missing of the brother of the victim

girl on the date of occurrence. From the statement of the victim girl

(PW1) and her mother (PW4), which were recorded under Section 164

Cr.P.C., it could be seen that the victim girl is an educated person and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.333 of 2020

she must have either Birth Certificate or School Certificate. Neither the

Birth Certificate or the School Certificate of the victim girl were marked

and only, the prosecution has marked the Conduct Certificate (Ex.P27) of

the victim girl. The Doctor (PW16), who examined the victim girl and

issued the age certificate (Ex.P26) has stated that the age of the victim

girl is above 18 years and below 20 years at the time of occurrence.

Therefore, if the age of the victim girl is above 16 years, she has given

consent for sexual intercourse, which would not fall under Section 376

IPC. Further, the prosecution has not established the threaten made by

the appellant at the time of occurrence. Even if the appellant threatened

the victim girl at the time of occurrence, she should have informed either

to her parents or close friends, but she did not inform the same to anyone.

It is very clear that the victim girl has voluntarily given consent for

sexual intercourse with the appellant and that is the reason, she has not

informed the same to anyone.

9.The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that

the date of giving the complaint and the person who has written the

complaint and who identified the appellant and the arrest of the appellant

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.333 of 2020

are highly doubtful. There are material contradictions between the

evidence of the victim girl (PW1) and the mother of the victim girl

(PW4). The mother of the victim girl (PW2) in chief examination has

stated when she returning to home after lodging the complaint, she saw

the appellant and informed the same to the Police and the Police came

there and arrested the appellant near the Railway Gate. But in cross

examination, she has stated that after two days of lodging the complaint,

she identified the appellant and informed the same to the Police and the

Police arrested him. Further, the evidence of the Doctor (PW16) and the

age certificate (Ex.P26) are not conclusively proved that the age of the

victim girl is above 18 years and below 20 years. Therefore, the exact

age of the victim girl (PW1) at the time of occurrence has not proved by

the prosecution. Even there are contradictions and suspicion between the

statements of the victim girl and her mother given before the Police and

their evidence given before the trial Court. The evidence of PW5 to PW8

are not supported the case of the prosecution.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.333 of 2020

10.The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that

the mother of the victim girl (PW4) very well knew about the pregnancy

of her daughter, but she did not ask her immediately. The mother of the

victim girl (PW4) stated that she and her daughter (PW1) were living

together in the same roof, but it is unbelievable that the mother of the

victim girl came to know about the pregnancy of her daughter at the

stage of 9th month. The learned counsel would submit that the learned

Sessions Judge failed to consider the material contradictions and

mechanically convicted the appellant only on conjectures and on

sympathy, and therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed

by the trial Court against the appellant, is liable to be set aside.

11.Mr.R.Suryaprakash, learned Government Advocate (Crl. side)

appearing on behalf of the respondent Police would submit that at the

time of occurrence, the age of the victim girl is only 17 years and she was

a minor. Prior to the occurrence, one of the brother of victim girl was

found missing. Taking advantage of the said fact, when the victim girl

was alone, the appellant called her on the pretext that her brother is in his

custody and asked her to come to home and take away her brother.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.333 of 2020

Believing the same, the victim girl (PW1) had gone to the house of

appellant and the appellant pushed her inside the house and laid on her

and had forcible sexual intercourse and also threatened her that if she

disclose the same to anyone, he would take away her life and also her

family members. Therefore, the victim girl did not inform the sexual act

committed by the appellant to anyone. Subsequently, the appellant on

four to five occasions, threatened the victim girl and had sexual

intercourse, due to which, she became pregnant. Thereafter, she gave the

complaint to the respondent and the same was marked as Ex.P1. On the

next day of lodging the complaint, the victim girl has given birth to a

male child. During investigation, the victim girl (PW1) and her mother

(PW4) were examined by the Investigating Officer and the blood samples

were taken from the victim girl, appellant and a child born to the victim

girl for DNA test.

12.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would further

submit that during trial, the victim girl was examined as PW1 and her

mother was examined as PW4. The mother of the victim girl has

narrated events and she did not aware of the fact that her daughter was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.333 of 2020

found pregnant. After discussing with the family members, the victim

girl and her mother went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint

(Ex.P1). During investigation, the blood samples were taken from the

victim girl, the child born to the victim girl and the appellant for DNA

test. The Scientific Officer (PW10) conducted test on the collected blood

samples and given DNA test report (Ex.P12) that the appellant is the

biological father of the male child born to the victim girl. Further, the

Doctor (PW16) conducted physical and radiological examination and

found that at the time of occurrence, the age of the victim girl was above

18 years below 20 years. Even assuming that the victim girl was given

consent, the age of the appellant at the time of occurrence was 40 years

and he was already married and also threatened the victim girl and had

forcible sexual intercourse. At the time of occurrence, the victim girl

was in the custody of the parents/lawful guardian, hence, the appellant

has committed the offence under Section 366 IPC. Since the appellant

had sexual intercourse by threatening and asked the victim girl not to

reveal the same to anyone, it falls under Section 376(i) IPC. Therefore,

the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant, and the appeal is liable

to be dismissed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.333 of 2020

13.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the

learned Government Advocate [Crl. Side] appearing for the respondent

and also perused the materials available on record.

14.The case of the prosecution is that at the time of occurrence, the

victim girl was a minor, aged about 17 years and she was living with her

parents. Prior to occurrence, the brother of the victim girl Ramesh was

found missing and he did not come to home after work. On 19.04.2011,

at about 02.00 p.m., when the victim girl was alone, the appellant called

her on the pretext that her brother Ramesh in his custody and asked her

to come to home and take her brother. Believing the same, the victim

girl (PW.1) had gone to the house of the appellant and when she entered

the house, the appellant pushed her inside and closed the door and closed

her mouth by using cloth and pushed her laid down and committed the

forcibly sexual assault and also threatened her not to reveal the same to

anyone, otherwise, he would take away her life and also her family

members. Sensing fear, the victim girl did not inform the act of the

appellant to anyone and the victim girl went to college as usual.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.333 of 2020

Thereafter, the appellant again had committed the penetrative sexual

assault on the victim girl for four to five times. After three months, the

mother of the victim girl (PW4) asked the victim girl that why her

stomach was big. The victim girl (PW1) informed her mother (PW4) that

the appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with her for 4 to 5 times.

Therefore, the victim girl and her mother lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) to

the respondent Police on 24.01.2012. On the next day i.e., 25.01.2012, at

night hours, a male baby was born to the victim girl.

15.Based on the complaint (Ex.P1) given by the victim girl (PW.1)

an FIR in Crime No.1 of 2012 was registered for offence under Sections

417, 376, 506(ii) of IPC. After completing investigation, the respondent

police laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate

(Additional Mahila Court), Salem and the same was taken on file in

P.R.C.No.5 of 2014. Since the offence is triable by the Court of Session,

the learned Judicial Magistrate, (Additional Mahila Court), Salem

committed the case to the District and Sessions Judge, Salem and the

same was taken on file in S.C.No.193 of 2014. Thereafter, the learned

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Salem made over the case to the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.333 of 2020

learned Session Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Salem.

16.During the trial, in order to prove the case of the prosecution,

on the side of the prosecution, as many as 16 witnesses were examined as

PW1 to PW16 and 27 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P27 and no

material object was exhibited. After completing the evidence of

prosecution witnesses, when incriminating circumstances were culled out

from the prosecution witnesses put before the accused, he had denied as

false. On the side of the defence, 2 witness were examined and three

documents were marked.

17.After considering the evidence on record and hearing on either

side, the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Salem vide

judgment dated 15.02.2018 in S.C.No.193 of 2014, convicted and

sentenced the appellant as stated above.

18.This Court, being an Appellate Court, is a fact finding Court,

which has to necessarily re-appreciate the entire evidence and give an

independent finding.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.333 of 2020

19.Against the appellant, the trial Court has framed charges under

Sections 366, 376(i) and 506(ii) IPC. In order to prove the charges

framed against the appellant, on the side of the prosecution, 16 witnesses

were examined, out of which, the victim girl was examined as PW1 and

her mother was examined as PW4.

20.A reading of the evidence of the victim girl, she has clearly

narrated the entire happenings that prior to the date of occurrence, the

brother of the victim girl Ramesh was found missing and the victim girl

and her family members searched him on various places. On 19.04.2011,

at about 02.00 p.m., when she was alone in her home, the appellant called

her and informed that his brother is available in his house. Hence, the

victim girl had gone to the house of the appellant and the appellant

pushed her into the house and closed the door and closed her mouth by

using cloth and pushed her laid down and committed the offence of

penetrative sexual intercourse and also threatened her not to reveal the

same to anyone, otherwise, he would take away her life and also her

family members. Sensing fear, the victim girl did not reveal the same to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.333 of 2020

anyone.

21.The mother of the victim girl was examined as PW.4 and she

has stated that in the year 2011 one of her son Ramesh was missing, at

that time, she was searching her son and the victim girl was alone in the

house. In the year 2012, she came to know that her daughter was

pregnant and when she enquired her, she informed happenings and

thereafter, she along with her daughter lodged the complaint (Ex.P1) on

24.01.2012. On the next day of lodging the complaint, the victim girl

gave a birth to male baby on 25.01.2012. During investigation, the

respondent Police have taken steps to collect the blood samples of the

appellant, the victim girl (PW.1) and also the male baby born to the

victim girl. The blood samples were collected and sent to Forensic

Science Department, Chennai for DNA test. The Scientific Officer

(PW.10) conducted DNA test and issued report, which was marked as

Ex.P12. A reading of Ex.P12, it clearly shows that as per the opinion of

PW.10, the appellant is the biological father of the male child born to the

victim girl. Therefore, the penetrative sexual assault committed by the

appellant towards the victim girl is proved by the prosecution and no

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.333 of 2020

independent witness is necessary for the same.

22.Now, the questions raised is whether the age of the victim girl

is below 18 years and whether it is a consented sexual intercourse or

under threat. In order to prove the age of the victim girl (PW.1), during

trial, the prosecution produced two documents viz., the age certificate

and the Conduct Certificate and the same were marked as Exs.P26 &

P27. Ex.P26 is the age certificate issued by the Doctor (PW.16),

Department of Forensic Medicine, Salem. As per Ex.P26, the age of the

victim girl on the date of giving the certificate dated 23.01.2014 is above

18 years and below 20 years. Ex.P27 is the Conduct Certificate issued by

Salem Sowdeswari College, Salem, in which, the date of birth of the

victim girl is mentioned as 21.01.1994 and the date of occurrence is on

19.04.2011. Therefore, on the date of occurrence, the victim girl was

only 17 years and 3 months of age and she has not completed the age of

18 years and she was a minor.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.333 of 2020

23.As already stated, as per DNA report (Ex.P12), the appellant is

the biological father of the male child born to the victim girl. Therefore,

a minor girl, who below the age of 18 years was subjected to sexual

assault. At the time of occurrence, the appellant threatened the victim

girl not to reveal the occurrence to anyone, otherwise, he would take

away her life and also her family members. As per Section 375 of IPC

prior to the Amendment of the year 2013, if the victim girl is above 16

years and if the appellant with her consent had a sexual intercourse, it is

not an offence under Section 366 IPC. In this case, the victim girl

(PW.1) has stated that she did not give any consent for sexual intercourse

and also stated that the appellant had sexual intercourse under threat and

therefore, it is the appellant, who has to prove on the consent of the

victim girl, he had sexual intercourse with her. In order to prove the

same, on side of the defence, during trial, the appellant examined two

witnesses (DW.1 & DW.2). DW.1 and DW.2 have stated that the

appellant is not the cause for the pregnancy of the victim girl and due to

her illegal relationship with her friends in the college, she got pregnancy

and therefore, cause for pregnancy of the victim girl is some body else,

not the appellant. The DNA test report (Ex.P12) clearly shows that the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.333 of 2020

appellant is the biological father of the male child born to the victim girl.

It is not the case of the appellant that the victim girl has given consent for

sexual intercourse. Since no such defence was taken by the defence that

the appellant had a sexual intercourse on the consent of the victim girl, it

could be seen that the appellant had committed the offence against the

consent of the victim girl.

24.The victim girl has clearly stated that the appellant forcibly had

a sexual intercourse and also threatened that if she reveal the same to

anyone, he would take away her life and also her family members.

Though the victim girl and her mother have suppressed about the

pregnancy of the victim girl, the facts remains that on the date of

occurrence, the victim girl is below the age of 18 years and she was a

minor and the victim girl was taken by the appellant without the consent

of the lawful guardian/parents and therefore, he has committed the

offence under Section 366 IPC. The evidence of the victim girl (PW.1) is

coupled with the DNA test report (Ex.P12), it is clearly proved that the

appellant has committed the penetrative sexual intercourse with the

victim girl and the appellant has not proved that on the consent of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.333 of 2020

victim girl he had sexual intercourse. In criminal case, the prosecution

has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. In

this case the prosecution proved that at the age of 18 years, the victim

girl was subjected to penetrative sexual assault by the appellant. The

DNA test proved that the appellant is the biological father of the baby of

the victim girl (PW.1) and therefore, he has committed the penetrative

sexual intercourse on the victim girl without her consent by threat.

25.The appellant has to come under the exception of Section

375(6) of IPC that with or without her consent, he had sexual intercourse

with the victim girl aged about 16 years of age. Prior to the Amendment

of the year 2013, if the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim

girl above the age of 16 year, it will not fall under Section 375 of IPC

and the punishable under Section 376 of IPC. But, it is for the appellant

to establish that the appellant with consent of the victim girl, he had

sexual intercourse. Merely because the victim girl has not disclosed the

fact till the birth of a child and prior to the date of giving birth to a child,

the offence committed by the appellant cannot be rejected. The victim

girl has clearly stated the reason for not disclosing the penetrative sexual

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.333 of 2020

intercourse committed by the appellant.

26.Therefore, on a perusal and consideration of the evidence of the

victim girl (PW.1), her mother (PW.4), the Scientific Officer (PW.10)

and the Doctor (PW.16), the complaint (Ex.P1), DNA test report

(Ex.P12), the age certificate of the victim girl (Ex.P26) and her Conduct

Certificate (Ex.P27), and all other oral and documentary evidence on

record, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond

reasonable doubt that the appellant kidnapped the victim girl and forcibly

by threat had penetrative sexual intercourse with her due to that she gave

a birth to a male baby.

27.Hence, this Court can safely come to the conclusion that the

appellant has kidnapped and raped the victim girl and therefore, the

prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the

light of the above discussion, this Court does not find any merit in this

appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

28.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.333 of 2020

judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is

confirmed. The trial Court is directed to secure the accused and commit

him to prison to undergo the sentence if he is outside.

29.The counsel who argued the appeal for the appellant was

appointed by the Legal Services Authority from the legal aid panel,

hence he is entitled for fees as per rule.

11.03.2021

vv2

Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No

To

1.The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Salem.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kondalampatti, Womens Police Station, Salem District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.333 of 2020

vv2

Crl.A.No.333 of 2020

11.03.2021

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