Madras High Court
Rajasekaran vs State By Inspector Of Police on 27 March, 2023
Crl A No.352 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Crl A No.352 of 2016
Rajasekaran ..Appellant / 1st Accused
Vs.
State by Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station,
Villupuram,
Crime No.58 of 2011 ..Respondent /
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.PC to set
aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the
learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila
Court), Villupuram in S.C.No.60 of 2012 dated 26.04.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Munusamy
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran
Government Advocate
[Criminal Side]
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl A No.352 of 2016
ORDER
When this Criminal Appeal came up for hearing on
24.01.2023, this Court passed the following order :-
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred challenging
the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Mahila Court, Villupuram dated 26.04.2016 made in
SC.No.60 of 2012.
2. The appellant is the first accused against
whom the prosecutrix/PW1 has given a complaint on
the allegation that the first accused gave a love proposal
to her and that was refused by the prosecutrix/PW1; due
to the continuous pressure given by the appellant, she
accepted his love proposal; on 20.08.2009 when she
was alone at her home, the first accused came there and
had sexual intercourse with her by promising to marry
her; he was in the habit of repeating the same on
several occasions, due to which prosecutrix/PW1 got
pregnant; thereafter, the prosecutrix/PW1 persuaded the
first accused to marry her, but he refused; when the
matter was revealed to her parents, they also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl A No.352 of 2016
approached the first accused, but he refused to marry
the prosecutrix/PW1; on 14.06.2011 the
prosecutrix/PW1 gave birth to a male baby; on
30.06.2011 at about 3.00 p.m, when PW1 along with
her parents went to the house of the first accused, the
parents of the first accused abused the prosecutrix/PW1
and demanded Rs.50,000/-, 10 sovereigns gold jewels
and Hero Honda Motorcycle for marrying her; hence,
PW1 gave a complaint (Ex.P1) against them.
2.1. On the said complaint, a case was registered
in Crime No.58 of 2011 for the offences under Sections
417, 376, 294(b) IPC read with Section 4 of DP Act by
All Women Police Station, Villupuram. After
completing the investigation, charge sheet has been
filed against the Accused 1 to 3 for the offence under
Sections 417, 376, 294(b) IPC read with Section 4 of
DP Act.
2.2. After the case was taken on file, the accused
were summoned and copies of the charge sheet were
furnished to them. On perusal of the records and
considering the same, the charges have been framed
against the first accused for the offences under Sections
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl A No.352 of 2016
417, 376 IPC and Section 4 of DP Act. As against the
accused 2 & 3, charges have been framed for the
offence under Sections 294(b) IPC and Section 4 of DP
Act.
2.3. During the course of the trial, on the side of
the prosecution, 9 witnesses have been examined as
PW1 to PW9 and Exs.P1to P9 were marked. On the
side of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence
was let in. At the conclusion of the trial and
considering the materials available on record, the
learned Sessions Judge had convicted the accused and
imposed the punishment as under:-
Rank of the Offence Punishment imposed
accused
Section 417 IPC To undergo One year
Rigorous Imprisonment and
A1 to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-
in default to undergo Six
months Rigorous
Imprisonment
Section 376 IPC Not found guilty
Section 4 of Not found guilty
D.P.Act
A2 Section 294(b) IPC Not found guilty
& Section 4 of
D.P.Act
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl A No.352 of 2016
A3 Section 294(b) IPC Not found guilty
& Section 4 of
D.P.Act
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing
for the respondent. Perused the entire materials
available on record.
4. When the matter was taken up on 02.01.2023,
this Court observed as under:
“It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the appellant and the victim had already
got married and living as husband and wife. They are
ready to appear before this Court to confirm the same.
2. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
appearing for the State seeks small accommodation to
verify the credentials of the same.
3. Post the matter on 24.01.2023.”
5. Today, when the matter was taken up, PW1
and the first accused were present before this Court.
6. It is seen that the appellant/first accused had
married PW1 and they have two children. PW1 has
stated that they are living as a family and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl A No.352 of 2016
appellant/first accused takes care of the family.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant/first
accused submitted that taking into consideration of the
change of circumstances in the lives of the
appellant/first accused and PW1, some lenience should
be shown in the matter of punishment.
8. No doubt this Court could understand the
difficulties that might be faced by PW1 and her
children, if the accused is sent to prison. On enquiry, it
came to be known that the marriage between the
appellant and PW1 had taken place on 10.01.2019. The
complaint has been given on 15.07.2011 after the first
child was born on 14.06.2011. From the year 2011 to
2016, the case was pending and the appellant/first
accused was convicted on 26.04.2016 after an
exhaustive trial. During the course of trial, PW1 was
cross examined at length and DNA analysis was also
done for the first child to confirm its paternity. DNA
test confirmed that the appellant/first accused is alone
the father of the child born to PW1. The appellant/A1
knew that he had fathered a child for PW1. But he
refused to marry PW1. It would have been an ordeal
for PW1 to undergo a full-fledged trial. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl A No.352 of 2016
appellant/first accused did not come forward to take
PW1 and the children to his family and left her at lurch
with a child in her hands.
9. He had chosen to marry her only in the year
2019. After marriage, PW1 delivered a female baby
also for the appellant/first accused and she is three
years old. Even though PW1 and her children would be
affected, if the appellant is sent to prison by confirming
the sentence, the ordeal undergone by the victim/PW1
for nearly 9 years as an unwed mother in her society
with a child cannot be overlooked. Around after the
appeal ends in his favour, if the appellant turns around
at the instigation of his family members and others and
deserts his wife and children, then also the worstly
affected persons would be PW1 and her children.
Unless some repentance in the form of some assurance
for the future of PW1 and her children is done, the
matter cannot be viewed in the manner wished by the
appellant. When the appellant/first accused was told
about this, he agreed to settle a house property in the
name of PW1 and prove his bona fides.
10. I feel the said proposal can be considered and
the further orders can be passed after the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl A No.352 of 2016
executes his words. Hence, list the matter on
20.02.2023.
2. The matter was once again heard on 20.02.2023
and this Court passed the following order :-
On 24.01.2023, this Court has passed a detailed order
after hearing the submissions of the learned counsel
for the appellant that he had married the prosecutrix in
the year 2019 and thereafter they lived peacefully
along with their children. The order of this Court was
to the following effect:
“8. No doubt this Court could understand the
difficulties that might be faced by PW1 and her
children, if the accused is sent to prison. On enquiry,
it came to be known that the marriage between the
appellant and PW1 had taken place on 10.01.2019.
The complaint has been given on 15.07.2011 after the
first child was born on 14.06.2011. From the year
2011 to 2016, the case was pending and the
appellant/first accused was convicted on 26.04.2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl A No.352 of 2016
after an exhaustive trial. During the course of trial,
PW1 was cross examined at length and DNA analysis
was also done for the first child to confirm its
paternity. DNA test confirmed that the appellant/first
accused is alone the father of the child born to PW1.
The appellant/A1 knew that he had fathered a child
for PW1. But he refused to marry PW1. It would
have been an ordeal for PW1 to undergo a full-
fledged trial. The appellant/first accused did not
come forward to take PW1 and the children to his
family and left her at lurch with a child in her hands.
9. He had chosen to marry her only in the year 2019.
After marriage, PW1 delivered a female baby also for
the appellant/first accused and she is three years old.
Even though PW1 and her children would be affected,
if the appellant is sent to prison by confirming the
sentence, the ordeal undergone by the victim/PW1 for
nearly 9 years as an unwed mother in her society with
a child cannot be overlooked. Around after the
appeal ends in his favour, if the appellant turns
around at the instigation of his family members and
others and deserts his wife and children, then also the
worstly affected persons would be PW1 and her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl A No.352 of 2016
children. Unless some repentance in the form of some
assurance for the future of PW1 and her children is
done, the matter cannot be viewed in the manner
wished by the appellant. When the appellant/first
accused was told about this, he agreed to settle a
house property in the name of PW1 and prove his
bona fides.
10. I feel the said proposal can be considered and the
further orders can be passed after the appellant
executes his words. Hence, list the matter on
20.02.2023.”
2. When the matter was taken up today, the learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant
is not able to settle the house property in the name of
P.W.1 because the house stands in the name of his
father and his father died and his brothers have not
come forward for partition.
3. The earlier order has been passed only to show
the bonafideness on the part of the appellant. The
appellant could have settled his undivided share that he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl A No.352 of 2016
would inherit from the father's house, in the name of
P.W.1. But, he did not come forward to do the same and
sought further time.
4. Hence, the matter is ordered to be listed on
01.03.2023.
3. The appeal thereafter came up for final hearing on
15.03.2023 and the learned Government Advocate submitted that
the appellant and PW1 got married and they are living happily with
two children and sought for some time to make them appear before
the Court. Accordingly, the matter stood adjourned to today.
4. The appellant Rajasekaran and his wife Punitha
(PW1) and their two children viz., Deva Punithan (12 years) and
Yazhini (3 ½ years) were present before this Court. The appellant
and PW1 informed this Court that they got married on 10.01.2018
and through the wedlock, two children were born and that they are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl A No.352 of 2016
living happily.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant also brought
to the notice of this Court the earlier order passed and submitted
that the appellant in order to show his bonafides also purchased a
property in the name of his wife Punitha. To substantiate the same,
a copy of the Sale deed dated 23.02.2023 registered as document
No.5564 of 2023 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Thirukkanur, was also
produced before this Court.
6. Mrs.C.Chandra, Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women
Police Station, Villupuram District was also present and the
concerned police officer instructed the learned Government
Advocate. The learned Government Advocate submitted that in
view of the subsequent development, he leaves it to this Court to
pass further orders in this criminal appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl A No.352 of 2016
7. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellant and PW1
had married and they have two children through the wedlock and
since the appellant was convicted and sentenced for offence under
Section 417 of IPC, this Court is inclined to compound the offence
under Section 320 of Cr.PC.
8. In the light of the above, the judgment and order
passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethi Mandram, Fast Track
Mahila Court in Villupuram District, in SC No.60 of 2012 dated
26.04.2016 is set aside and this Criminal Appeal is disposed of
accordingly. The Trial Court had imposed the sentence of fine of
Rs.50,000/- against the appellant and this amount was deposited by
the appellant on 26.04.2016 before the Trial Court. Only after such
deposit, the appellant filed the application seeking for suspension
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl A No.352 of 2016
of sentence in Crl MP No.5439 of 2016 and the sentence was
suspended by order dated 01.07.2016. In view of the fact that the
offence is compounded, the fine amount has to be refunded to the
appellant. It is left open to the appellant to file a memo before the
Trial Court seeking for the withdrawal of the sum of Rs.50,000/-
and the memo shall be entertained and the appellant shall be
permitted to withdraw the sum of Rs.50,000/-.
27.03.2023
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes
Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order
rka
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl A No.352 of 2016
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
rka
To
The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram,
(Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram
Crl A No.352 of 2016
27.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
