Madras High Court
Krishnamurthy vs The State on 30 August, 2023
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Judgment Reserved On Judgment Pronounced On
17.03.2023 30.08.2023
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
1.Krishnamurthy, S/o.Balasundaram
2.Shanthi, W/o.Balasundaram
3.Sangeetha, W/o.Chakkaravarthi
4.Chakkaravarthi, S/o.Dharmarajan ... Appellants/A1 to A4
Vs.
The State,
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Jayankondam,
Ariyalur District.
(Crime No.9 of 2016) ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to set
aside the order of conviction and sentence dated 03.01.2017, made in
Special S.C.No.21 of 2016, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur and allow the Criminal Appeal.
1/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
For Appellants : Mr.C.Prabakaran
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
Amicus curiae : Mrs.B.S.Ajeetha
JUDGMENT
The appellants herein are Accused Nos.1 to 4 in Special Sessions
Case No.21 of 2016, on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur.
They stood charged for the offences as under:-
Rank Charges
A1 Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006;
Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 [in short, 'POCSO Act']; and Section 323 I.P.C.
A2 to A4 Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006;
and Section 4 read with Section 17 of the POCSO Act.
After trial, by judgment dated 03.01.2017, the Trial Court convicted them as
under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
Rank Conviction under Section Sentence
Section 9 of the To undergo rigorous imprisonment
Prohibition of Child for two years and to pay a fine of
Marriage Act, 2006 Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for one
month.
Section 4 of POCSO Act To undergo rigorous imprisonment
A1 for ten years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for six
months.
Section 323 I.P.C. To undergo simple imprisonment
for six months and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for one
month.
Section 10 of the To undergo rigorous imprisonment
Prohibition of Child for one year and to pay a fine of
Marriage Act, 2006 Rs.500/- each, in default, to
undergo simple imprisonment for
A2 to A4 three months.
Section 4 read with To undergo rigorous imprisonment
Section 17 of the POCSO for ten years and to pay a fine of
Act Rs.500/- each, in default, to
undergo simple imprisonment for
six months.
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said
conviction and sentences, the appellants are before this Court with this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
criminal appeal.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
(i) The victim girl [P.W.2], who was aged about 13 years as on 2016,
is the daughter of A4 and her date of birth is 04.06.2003. She lost her
mother when she was three months old. She was studying 9th Standard in a
Government School at the time of marriage. Sangeetha (A3) is her step
mother. After the death of the victim girl's mother, her father (A4) married
A3. After that, victim girl was not properly taken care by both her step
mother (A3) and father (A4), hence, the victim girl was staying in her
grandmother's house.
(ii) A3 and A4 arranged marriage for the victim girl with
Krishnamoorthy (A1). Accordingly, on 19.08.2016 between 06.00 a.m. and
07.30 a.m., A1 married the victim girl in the presence of A2 to A4 in a
Temple. Thereafter, the victim girl was taken to the house of A1 and A2.
On 23.08.2013 at 10.00 p.m. in the night hours, A1 forcibly committed
penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. Thereafter, whenever A1
demanded for sexual intercourse, the victim girl told him that she would
commit suicide if she was forced again. On 14.09.2016 at about 09.00 p.m.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
A1 beaten the victim girl with a plastic pipe. Hence, she left the house of
A1 and A2 and called Child Line (1098) and got help from them.
(iii) A complaint was lodged by one Suguna (P.W.1), Organizer of
Child Line, Ariyalur District. On the basis of the said complaint (Ex.P.1),
the respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.9 of 2016 against A1 to
A4 for the offences under Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child
Marriage Act, 2006, Sections 4 and 17 of the POCSO Act and Section 323
I.P.C. A1 and A2 were arrested and subsequently, released on bail. A3 and
A4 surrendered and released on bail. After completion of investigation,
final report filed before the Trial Court. The Trial Court framed charges
against A1 to A4 as mentioned above and after trial, convicted and
sentenced them as mentioned supra.
3.In order to bring charges to home, the prosecution examined 17
witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 17 on its side and marked 15 documents, viz.,
Exs.P.1 to P.15. However, the prosecution did not mark any material object.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
3.1. P.W.1 Suguna, Organizer of Child Line (1098) at Ariyalur. Upon
receipt of information through Phone from Chennai Office about child
marriage of the victim girl, on 23.09.2016 P.W.3 Elakiya and P.W.4
Paramasivam, the Members of the Child Line Organization, Ariyalur,
visited the Village, where the victim girl was staying, gathered information.
Thereafter, the victim girl was brought to the Office of Child Line at
Ariyalur. After inquiring the victim girl, P.W.1 lodged a complaint with the
respondent Police on 24.09.2016, which marked as Ex.P.1.
3.2. P.W.2 victim girl deposed that her date of birth was 06.04.2003.
She narrated about her marriage with the first accused. As per her version,
on 19.08.2016 at about 07.00 a.m. she was taken to an Iyyanar Temple,
situated at Udayarpalayam – Cholankurichi Road, by her father (A4) and
step mother (A3), where A1 and A2 present. In the presence of P.W.6
Ramalingam, Priest of the Temple, P.W7 Senthamilselvi, wife of P.W.6 and
others, A1 tied Mangalsutra around the neck of the victim girl and married
her. After the marriage, the victim girl taken to the house of A1 and A2, at
Malangan Kudiyiruppu, where they lived for nearly one month. Further, as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
per her oral testimony, A1 committed penetrative sexual assault on
24.08.2016, on the next day, A1 again attempted sexual intercourse with
her. Since victim girl refused, A1 beaten her with stick. Thereafter, victim
girl informed A1 that she would not live with him anymore and to leave her
at her parents' house. On the next day, A1, A2 and an old lady,
Chinnaponnu took the victim girl to her house and left her there. A3
refused to take the victim girl. Hence, the victim girl stayed with one
Anjalai near her grandmother's/P.W.5's (Thatchayani) house. P.W.5 visited
her house and asked the victim girl to lodge a complaint about the child
marriage. The victim girl informed the same to her father (A4), but he did
not say anything. Thereafter, P.W.2 called Child Help Line (1098) and gave
information. The victim girl narrated the sequence, her medical
examination and the statement recorded under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. The
victim girl identified all the accused persons.
3.3. P.W.3 Elakiya and P.W.4 Paramasivam, Members of the Child
Line Organization, Ariyalur, deposed in line with P.W.1 and P.W.2.
3.4. P.W.5 Thatchayani, grandmother of the victim girl, had two
houses, one at Elaiyur Village of the victim girl and another at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
Katchiperumal Village. Initially, the victim girl was staying along with
Anjalai in Elaiyur Village. P.W.5 informed the victim girl that since she was
married, she should not stay with Anjalai. Therefore, the victim girl came to
the house of P.W.5 at Katchiperumal Village. P.W.5 further deposed that
the victim girl called 1098 and informed about the child marriage, Officers
from the Child Help Line came to Katchiperumal Village and took P.W.5
and the victim girl to their Office at Ariyalur.
3.5. P.W.6 Ramalingam, Priest of the Temple, who performed the
marriage of the victim girl with A1 in the presence of A2 to A4 and others,
not supported the prosecution case.
3.6. P.W.7 Senthamilselvi, wife of the Temple Priest [P.W.6],
witness for preparation of Rough Sketch and Observation Mahazar, for the
place of marriage namely, the Temple. P.W.7 not supported the case of
prosecution, treated hostile.
3.7. P.W.8 Tamilarasan and P.W.9 Kaviyarasan, present during child
marriage of the victim girl and A1 on 19.08.2016, not supported the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
prosecution case, treated hostile.
3.8. P.W.10 Anbalagan, witness for preparation of Rough Sketch and
Observation Mahazar along with P.W.7 admitted his signature (Ex.P.3)
alone in the Observation Mahazar. He was also treated hostile.
3.9. P.W.11 Arivalagan identified the house of A1 and A2 and a
witness for the Rough Sketch – II and Observation Mahazar – II, where
penetrative sexual assault had taken place as per the case of prosecution.
The said documents marked as Exs.P.4 and P.5.
3.10. P.W.12 Dr.Elavarasan examined A1. After completion of
medical examination, certified A1 was a fit person to indulge in sexual
intercourse with another. P.W.12 certified that A1 was a potent man. The
Semen Analysis Report (Ex.P.6) and Medical Report (Ex.P.7) marked
through P.W.12.
3.11. P.W.13 Dr.Banumathi, medically examined the victim girl on
25.09.2016, recorded the statement of the victim girl about her marriage
with a known person, who committed penetrative sexual assault on her on
one occasion. P.W.13 found hymen of the victim girl not intact and she did
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
not notice any other injury either on the private parts of the victim girl or on
her body. Uterus was normal in size. She further stated that the victim girl
was not pregnant and gave Ex.P.8 Medical Certificate with the above
details.
3.12. P.W.14 Selvavinayagam Headmaster of the Government Higher
Secondary School, Elaiyur, where the victim girl studied at the time of her
marriage with A1, confirmed the victim girl was studying 9th Standard
during the Academic year 2016 – 2017, School Certificate with date of birth
of the victim girl, marked as Ex.P.9. Further, a certified copy of the School
Admission Register of the victim girl compared with Original Register and
marked as Ex.P.10. As per the details found in the Admission Register
(Ex.P.10), the date of birth of the victim was 04.06.2003. A copy of the
Transfer Certificate issued on 05.10.2016 compared with original, marked
as Ex.P.11. All documents maintained by the school authority show that the
date of birth of the victim girl was 04.06.2003. He admits that he was not
Headmaster when P.W.2 admitted in the School and admits that there is
correction in the year of birth.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
3.13. P.W.15 Selvakumari, Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women
Police Station, Jayankondam, received the complaint (Ex.P.1) from P.W.1
on 24.09.2016 at 16.00 hours, registered a case in Crime No.9 of 2016, vide
First Information Report (Ex.P.12). She enquired the victim girl and P.W.1,
recorded their statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. After recording the
statement of the victim girl, she added the father of the victim girl as A4 in
the case, vide Ex.P.14 Addition of Accused Report. Thereafter, P.W.15
handed over the investigation to the Inspector of Police, Andimadam, who
was in charge of All Women Police Station, Jayankondam.
3.14. P.W.16 Senthilkumar, Inspector of Police, who investigated the
case, examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, visited the place of
occurrence, prepared Rough Sketch and Observation Mahazar. P.W.16
arrested A1 and A2 on 24.09.2016 at 19.00 hours. Thereafter, he handed
over the case file to P.W.17 for further investigation.
3.15. P.W.17 Velusamy, Inspector of Police, took up further
investigation of the case, visited the places of occurrence, prepared another
set of Rough Sketch and Observation Mahazar, inquired the witnesses and
recorded their statements. P.W.17 took steps for recording the statement of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
the victim girl by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 164(5)
Cr.P.C. P.W.17 enquired the Doctors, recorded their statements and
collected documents. On 14.10.2016, P.W.17 inquired the Headmaster of
the School and recorded his statements, collected School Certificate for
proving the age of the victim girl. After completion of investigation, he
filed final report against the appellants/accused for the offences as stated
above.
3.16. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila
Court, Ariyalur, took the case on file in Spl.S.C.No.21 of 2016 issued
summons to the appellants/accused and on their appearance, framed
charges, proceeded with the trial, examined P.W.1 to P.W.17, marked
Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.15. No witness or documents produced on the side of the
accused.
3.17. The appellants/accused were questioned under Section
313[1][b] Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances, against
them from the evidences, the accused denied the same as false. The
appellants/accused did not file any document or let in any oral evidence.
3.18. The Trial Court, on consideration and appreciation of oral and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
documentary evidences, convicted and sentenced the appellants/accused as
stated above and hence, this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses, which does not inspire
confidence and therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have relied on their
evidence to convict the appellants. There are several contradictions in the
evidence of prosecution witnesses, which are not corroborated and hence,
the prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond
reasonable doubt.
4.1. The learned counsel further submitted that there is an inordinate
delay of one month in lodging the complaint and there is no explanation
given for the delay in lodging the complaint. He further submitted that there
is no proof of marriage allegedly took place at the Temple. P.W.6 to
P.W.10, Priest of the Temple, his wife and other witnesses projected to
prove that they attended the marriage, all declared hostile. He further
submitted that Mangalsutra not produced. The prosecution not proved
foundational facts of the case. Further, there is no conclusive proof for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
marriage between the victim girl and A1.
4.2. The learned counsel further submitted that P.W.16 categorically
admitted that he has not taken steps for medical examination of the victim
girl (P.W.2) to assess her age. From the evidence of P.W.14 the Headmaster
of the School, there is correction in the School Register. Therefore, there is
no conclusive proof for the age of the victim girl. Further, Exs.P.10 and
P.11 are not the conclusive proof for the age of the victim girl in the
absence of birth certificate or birth extract of the victim girl. Therefore, the
conviction under the POCSO Act as well as the Prohibition of Child
Marriage Act does not get attracted in this case.
4.3. The learned counsel further submitted that P.W.13 Doctor opined
that even in the absence of sexual intercourse, the hymen can be torn due to
development of the age of the person and other activities and there is no
external or internal injuries found in the body of the victim girl, which gains
significance, since the prosecution case is that, it was a forceful penetrative
sexual assault, further, the recording in Ex.P.8 shows that there is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
evidence of recent injuries. Hence, it cannot be conclusively said that there
was penetrative sexual assault.
4.4. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the
statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and the deposition of the
victim girl are contrary to each other and not corroborated. In this case, 164
Cr.P.C. statement of victim not produced. Therefore, false case foisted
against the appellants, which was further developed at the instigation of
Child Help Line and the same is not acceptable in evidence. The conviction
imposed on the appellants solely based on the deposition of the victim girl
(P.W.2) is unsustainable in law and therefore, the same is liable to be set
aside.
5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for
the prosecution submitted that time and again, the Courts have held that if
the evidence of the victim girl is cogent and clear and the testimony is not
found to be tainted, the conviction is proper on the basis of such evidence
alone. He further submitted that in this case, the evidence of the victim girl
(P.W.2) is cogent and clear and she stood by her version in the cross-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
examination.
5.1. He further submitted that the prosecution has proved the age of
the victim girl to be below 18 years through the evidence of the Headmaster
(P.W.14) and Exs.P.9 to P.11 and therefore, the victim girl was a child at the
time of occurrence as per definition of Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act.
Though the witnesses for marriage of the victim girl turned hostile, the
evidence of the victim girl proves her marriage with A1. He further
submitted that from the evidence of the victim girl, the prosecution proved
the penetrative sexual assault by A1 on the victim girl. Further, the
evidence of P.W.13 Dr.Banumathi confirms the version of the victim girl
regarding the penetrative sexual assault. The oral testimony of the victim
girl supports the charge under Section 323 I.P.C. against A1. He further
submitted that by marrying a child below the age of 18 years, A1, who is
aged about 36 years, had committed an offence punishable under Section 9
of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 also.
5.2. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) also
submitted that by assisting and arranging the performance of the marriage of
the minor girl with A1, all other accused have committed an offence under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. Further, abetted A1 in
commission of penetrative sexual assault and therefore, A2 to A4 have
rendered themselves liable to be punished under Section 4 read with Section
17 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution has proved all the charges against
all the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, he prayed for
dismissal of the Criminal Appeal.
6.This Court has given its anxious consideration to the submissions
made on behalf of the counsels and perused the evidence and other materials
placed on record.
7.While pending this appeal, the sentence of the appellants 2 to 4
were suspended by this Court. Now, the victim girl attained majority and
filed an affidavit dated 18.04.2022 before this Court to the effect that she
decided to continue her studies and also to live with the first appellant/A1
and there may not be any difficulty to continue the matrimonial life with
him. Relevant portion of the said affidavit reads as under:-
''1. I am the victim girl of the Crime No.9 of 2016
before the Respondent Police registered under Section
9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, Section 4 of
the POCSO Act and section 323 of IPC. The above
case was registered on the complaint of PW1 who is an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
organiser of Child Helpline when I was in the house of
my grandmother.
2. I submit that in order to do a favour and
secure my future my parents/Appellants 3 & 4 herein
made an arrangement for my marriage with the 1st
appellant in the above Criminal Appeal. Accordingly, a
marriage was solemnized on 19-08-2016 and I lived for
a period of 1 month in the matrimonial house. There
was a misunderstanding between me and the 1st
appellant herein. Therefore, I came to my
grandmother's house and lived therein. At that time, by
the intervention of the neighbour, a complaint was
instituted with the respondent police as I was aged
about 14 years at the time of marriage. Accordingly, a
case was registered against the appellants herein who
are my husband, my mother-in-law, my stepmother and
my father respectively.
3. I further submit that subsequently on
completion of trial, the appellants were convicted in
Spl.S.C.No.21 of 2016 on the file of Fast Track Mahila
Court, Ariyalur, by a judgement dated 03-01-2017. 1
submit that subsequent to the case, I have decided to
continue my studies. Accordingly, with the assistance
of my parents, I am studying B.B.A. at Karaikudi and
doing well. As the marriage which took place on 19-08-
2016 though was not valid at that time, but now on
attainment of majority, the said marriage has become
valid and I have decided to live with the first
appellant/Krishnamurthy who is also my relative even
prior to marriage. As of now, there may not be any
difficulty to continue the matrimonial life with the first
appellant.
4. I submit that in view of this development, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
judgement of conviction which stands against the
appellants may be considered prospectively by
acquitting them for the betterment of both the parties
and more particularly, to secure my future. Otherwise,
I will be put to great prejudice at a very young age.
Hence, this affidavit may be taken into consideration
for my interest and welfare.
For the foregoing circumstances, I pray that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept this Affidavit
and pass suitable orders in the Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
by acquitting the appellants and thus render justice.''
8. On previous occasion, this Court interacted with the victim girl
(P.W.2) to ascertain about the affidavit filed, at that time, P.W.2 informed
that she is studying B.B.A. final year, determined to continue further studies
in law and practice as an Advocate. She confirmed that there was no
penetrative sexual assault made by the first appellant/A1. It was made then
only to get rid of her problems and difficulty faced by her, she was denied
love and affection or care from her father or from anyone. She had a
burning desire to study. She got shattered when she was forced to
discontinue her education due to the marriage. She aspires to continue her
studies, which would alleviate her to get away from the precarious situation.
In view of the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was directed
to ensure the presence of the victim girl and the Investigating Officer along
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
with Case Diary in Crime No.9 of 2016 on 10.03.2023 and requested
Mrs.B.S.Ajeetha to do pro bono work to have interaction with the victim
girl on 17.03.2023 in the Chambers and accordingly, listed the matter on
17.03.2023.
9.As per the earlier direction of this Court, dated 03.03.2023, the
victim girl as well as the Investigating Officer appeared before this Court
and Mrs.B.S.Ajeetha, learned counsel, interacted with the victim girl for a
long time. Thereafter, Mrs.B.S.Ajeetha, informed that the victim girl
determined to continue her further studies in Law and practice as an
Advocate, which will give protection and pride for women. She further
informed that the present arrangement of providing education is only upto
the degree level and she was doing well and Mrs.B.S.Ajeetha, learned
counsel, undertook to find out the helping hands in fulfilling the victim
girl's needs and provide the details. Accordingly, an undertaking letter dated
03.04.2023, from Dr.P.V.Venkatraman, Managing Trustee of
P.V.Bakthavatchalam Trust [PVB Trust], has been received stating that the
P.V.B. Trust has resolved to support the victim girl to pursue and complete
Law degree in any one of the Government Law Colleges in Tamil Nadu or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
in any other Law College, that is recognized by the Bar Council of India. He
undertakes that the PVB Trust by itself or through resources mobilized from
other Philanthropic sources, will take care of the annual tuition fees and
expenses towards books and stationery apart from her living costs and
incidental expenses. The victim girl's name will be enrolled in the Chief
Minister's Health Insurance Scheme for the purpose of medical support and
the support for her boarding and lodging will also be overseen by the PVB
Trust by ensuring the same through the provisions made by the Government
and other sources.
10.The affidavit filed by the victim girl, dated 18.04.2022, shows that
she is desirous to continue her future studies in law and practice as an
Advocate and she has no objection to set aside the conviction imposed on
the appellants.
11.In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramgopal and others vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
the relevant paragraphs of the said decision are extracted hereunder:-
''18. It is now a well crystallized axiom that the
plenary jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete
justice under Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited
or restricted by ordinary statutory provisions. It is also
noteworthy that even in the absence of an express
provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring
powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside
criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable
under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this
Court with scopious powers to quash criminal
proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. In
doing so, due regard must be given to the overarching
objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system,
which is grounded on the sublime philosophy of
maintenance of peace of the collective and that the
rationale of placing an individual behind bars is aimed
at his reformation.
19. We thus sumup and hold that as opposed to
Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided
by the compromise between the parties in respect of
offences ?compoundable? within the statutory
framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a
High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this
Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be
invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320
Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of
wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the
context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in
mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the
conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury,
if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between
the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the
accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of
the purported offence and/or other relevant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
considerations.
20. Having appraised the aforestated parameters
and weighing upon the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the two appeals before us, we are
inclined to invoke powers under Article 142 and quash
the criminal proceedings and consequently set aside
the conviction in both the appeals. We say so for the
reasons that: Firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in
these appeals can be categorized as purely personal or
having overtones of criminal proceedings of private
nature; Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred, for
which the Appellants have been convicted, do not
appear to exhibit their mental depravity or commission
of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of
which would override public interest; Thirdly, given
the nature of the offence and injuries, it is immaterial
that the trial against the Appellants had been
concluded or their appeal(s) against conviction stand
dismissed; Fourthly, the parties on their own volition,
without any coercion or compulsion, willingly and
voluntarily have buried their differences and wish to
accord a quietus to their dispute(s); Fifthly, the
occurrence(s) in both the cases took place way back in
the years 2000 and 1995, respectively. There is nothing
on record to evince that either before or after the
purported compromise, any untoward incident
transpired between the parties; Sixthly, since the
Appellants and the complainant(s) are residents of the
same village(s) and/or work in close vicinity, the
quashing of criminal proceedings will advance peace,
harmony, and fellowship amongst the parties who have
decided to forget and forgive any ill-will and have no
vengeance against each other; and Seventhly, the
cause of administration of criminal justice system
would remain un-effected on acceptance of the
amicable settlement between the parties and/or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
resultant acquittal of the Appellants; more so looking
at their present age.''
12.On the facts and circumstances of the case and the assertion and
affirmation of the victim girl (P.W.2), it is seen that she was not subjected to
penetrative sexual assault, such allegation was made only to get rid of her
precarious situation she was facing and to continue her education, fight for
similarly placed children and to empower women. This conviction could be
seen during personal interaction as well as from the assessment of the
learned Amicus Curiae, facilitator Tmt.B.S.Ajeetha, who took efforts, pain
with patience and passion and could understand the victim, a child in need
for care and protection, infused confidence to the victim and undertakes to
take care of the victim by all means.
13.Thus, from the above facts and circumstances and taking cue from
the judgment supra, this Court set aside the judgment of conviction imposed
on the appellants in Spl.S.C.No.21 of 2016, dated 03.01.2017, by the
learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur. The
appellants/accused are acquitted of all charges and set at liberty. Fine
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellants forthwith. Bail
bonds, if any executed, shall stand cancelled. The first appellant/A1 is
directed to be released forthwith, unless his custody is required in
connection with any other case. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands
allowed.
14.Before parting with this case, this Court wishes to place on record
its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned counsel
Mrs.B.S.Ajeetha, and also appreciate Dr.P.V.Venkatraman, Managing
Trustee of PVB Trust, for extending his support to the victim girl to pursue
and complete the Law degree.
Index : Yes/No 30.08.2023
Internet: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
smn2/vv2
Copy to :- (1) The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Trichy.
(2) Dr.P.V.Venkatraman,
Managing Trustee,
P.V.Bakthavatchalam Trust,
No.33, First Main Road,
Lake Area,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Mahila Court,
Ariyalur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Jayankondam,
Ariyalur District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
smn2/vv2
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
Crl.A.No.119 of 2017
30.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
