Madras High Court
Pushpa vs Manikandan on 21 September, 2022
Crl.A.No.466 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 21.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.A.No.466 of 2016
Pushpa ...Appellant
Vs.
1.Manikandan
2.The Inspector of Police,
Sankarapuram Police Station.
Villupuram ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. praying
to set aside the judgement of acquittal dated 28.08.2015 passed in
S.C.No.159 of 2014 on the file of Sessions Judge Magalir Neethi
Mandram/Fast Track Mahila Court, Villupuram and convict the first
respondent by allowing the above appeal.
For Appellant : Ms.Veeramarthini
For Respondents : Mr.C.Munusamy, for R1
Mr.R.Kishore Kumar,
Government Advocate (Criminal side),
for R2
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the victim being aggrieved
by the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The case against the respondent initiated on the complaint
given by the victim alleging rape and cheating by committing breach of
promise to marry her, the complaint also alleges that the respondent
intimidated the de facto complainant and abused her.
3. Based on the complaint, investigation has been completed
and charges under Sections 417, 376, 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C were
framed and the accused was tried by the learned Mahila Neethimandram
(Fast Track Court), Villupuram in S.C.No.159 of 2014. 16 witnesses
were examined as PW.1 to PW.16 and 12 exhibits marked as Ex.P1 to
Ex.P12.
4. The crucial evidence is Ex.P.8-DNA report of the child
born to the victim girl indicating that the accused is the biological father.
However, the trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the
victim had intercourse with the accused voluntarily and it was consensual
sex. The breach of promise to marry her will not attract the offence under
Section 417 of I.P.C. Regarding the usage of abusive language and
criminal intimidation, the Court below disbelieved the case of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.466 of 2016
prosecution and acquitted the accused.
5. In the appeal, the victim has contended that the trial Court
erred in acquitting the accused on the ground of delay and on the ground
of consent for sex, but both the reasons are untenable under law and
facts. The complaint was not lodged immediately after the commission of
the offence, since the offender promised to marry her and the victim
believed the words of the accused. When the fact came to light that the
said promise was only with an intention to deceive her, the complaint
was given. By that time she was at the advance stage of pregnancy.
Further, the trial Court failed to take note of the fact that at the time of
occurrence, the victim was less than 18 years old and DNA report clearly
establishes the fact that the respondent is the biological father of the
child born to the victim subsequent to the complaint.
6. This Court, on perusing the records, the evidence and the
reasons given by the Court below for acquitting the respondent, finds
grave miscarriage of justice has been done to the complainant. Taking
note of the admission of the victim, who was examined as PW.1 that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
accused is the neighbouring land owner and residing in the farm house
enticed her, under the pretext of love and promise of marriage had
intercourse with her and impregnated her as voluntary consent. This
portion of the evidence being taken as valid consent by the victim girl
without taking note of the fact that at the time of giving the consent, the
victim was a minor girl and such consent was not a valid one. On
considering the fact that, at that time of occurrence she was above 16
years old, the Court below has extended the benefit of doubt to acquit the
accused. However, from the evidence let in by the prosecution, this Court
nowhere finds that the exact date of birth of the victim girl. The trial
Court without any evidence has concluded that the de facto complainant
was 16 years old.
7.. In the said circumstances, this Court holds the judgment
of the trial Court is perverse. Ex.P8 and the evidence of PW.1, victim of
the crime, clearly indicate that the respondent herein had impregnated the
victim, who was a minor at the time of occurrence and the alleged
consent was obtained by fraud and deceitful manner. Hence liable to be
punished for the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C., though the benefit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.466 of 2016
of doubt may the extended for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C.
8. In the light of the above findings, the trial Court judgment
of acquittal is partly set aside. Hence, this Criminal Appeal is partly
allowed.
9. The Registry is directed to issue bailable warrant to the
accused to appear before this Court on 28.09.2022 for answering the
question of sentence under Section 417 of I.P.C. The respondent police is
directed to execute the bailable warrant to the accused/1st respondent for
his presence before this Court on 28.09.2022 at 10.30 a.m..
10. Post the matter on 28.09.2022.
21.09.2022
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rpl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Sessions Judge Magalir Neethi Mandram/Fast Track Mahila Court,
Villupuram
2.The Inspector of Police,
Sankarapuram Police Station,
Villupuram.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High court of Madras,
Chennai-104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.466 of 2016
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
rpl
Crl.A.No.466 of 2016
21.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
