Madras High Court
Gopalakrishnan vs The Inspector Of Police on 28 March, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)No.77 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.77 of 2018
Gopalakrishnan ... Petitioner/
Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Vellianai Police Station,
Vellianai,
Karur District.
In Crime No.94 of 2012. ... Respondent/
Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the Judgment made in
Crl.A.No.6 of 2013 on the file of the Mahila Court, Karur, dated
15.07.2014, confirming the Judgment in S.C.No.73 of 2012 on the
file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Karur, dated 02.02.2013
convicting the petitioner for an offence under Sections 417 and 376
of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment
and fine sum of Rs.5,000/- and in default six months Rigorous
Imprisonment and allow this Criminal Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gokul Raj
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
Crl.R.C(MD)No.77 of 2018
ORDER
The revision has been filed to set aside the Judgment
made in Crl.A.No.6 of 2013 on the file of the Mahila Court, Karur,
dated 15.07.2014, confirming the Judgment made in S.C.No.73 of
2012 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Karur, dated
02.02.2013.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused used
to interact with the victim aged about 14 years under the pretext of
a love affair. The accused was working in the chilli chicken shop and
he was residing at Jothivadam. On 08.05.2012 at about 5.00 p.m.,
when the victim called him through phone, the accused invited her
to his house. When the victim entered into his house, he
immediately locked the door and on the pretext of marriage
compelled her to have a sexual relationship. When the victim
refused to do so, he committed rape on her. Hence the complaint.
3.On receipt of the said complaint, the respondent
registered the F.I.R in Crime No.26 of 2012 for the offences under
Sections 417 and 376 of I.P.C. After completion of the investigation,
the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.77 of 2018
cognizance in S.C.No.73 of 2012 on the file of the Assistant
Sessions Judge, Karur.
4.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution
had examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and
also marked M.O.1 and M.O.2 and on the side of the petitioner, no
one was examined and no documents were marked.
5.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 376 of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo seven years
Rigorous Imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in
default, he shall undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment and
acquitted him for the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. Aggrieved
by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.6 of
2013 on the file of the Mahila Court, Karur and the Appellate Court
dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the conviction imposed by
the trial Court. Hence, the present Revision.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and not
at all supported the case of the prosecution to convict the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.77 of 2018
for the offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. Admittedly,
the petitioner had a love affair with the victim. In fact the victim
herself had called the petitioner and they had a physical
relationship. Therefore, no offence is made out under Section 376 of
I.P.C. Further, there was a delay in lodgment of the complaint before
the respondent and there was a delay in sending the F.I.R to the
Court. The said delay was not properly explained by the
prosecution. Though the trial Court acquitted the petitioner for the
offence punishable under Section 417 of I.P.C since it was not
proved by the prosecution, the petitioner also ought to have been
acquitted for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. Therefore, the
petitioner never intended to commit rape on the victim when the
victim herself came to his house and had a physical relationship.
Though the prosecution produced M.O.1 and M.O.2, it was not
subjected to any analysis from the laboratory in order to prove the
discharge of rape. The victim was not at all subjected to the medical
examination to prove the charge under Section 376 of I.P.C.
Therefore, the report submitted by the Doctor cannot be taken into
account. As per the evidence of the Doctor who treated the victim
deposed that there is no external injury found in the medical
checkup of P.W.1. Therefore the petitioner prayed for acquittal from
the charge under Section 376 of I.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.77 of 2018
7.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate
(Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that in
order to prove the charge for the offence punishable under Section
376 of I.P.C, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and
marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and the prosecution also produced
material objects M.O.1 and M.O.2. The victim was examined as P.W.
1. She categorically deposed that she called the petitioner through
phone, and she was invited by him. When the victim went there,
she was compelled to come inside his house. Immediately, the
petitioner locked the door and committed rape on her. Thereafter,
the victim managed to reach her house with blood bleeding and
informed her paternal uncle who was examined as P.W.4.
Immediately, the same was informed to her parents, who were
examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3. The evidence of P.W.1 was
corroborated by P.W.2 to P.W.4. Immediately she was taken to the
hospital and the Doctor who treated her was examined as P.W.7.
The Doctor also opined that the victim was subjected to rape and as
such, she sustained injuries on her private part. Therefore, there
was fresh blood bleeding and the said blood bleeding was not due to
her monthly periods. Therefore, the prosecution proved its case
beyond any doubt and both the Courts below rightly convicted the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.77 of 2018
petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C and
the same does not require any interference by this Court and
prayed for dismissal of the revision.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
9.The victim was aged only 14 years at the time of
occurrence. Under the pretext of a love affair and marriage, the
petitioner called her inside the house and locked the door. When the
victim tried to get out of the house, the petitioner restrained her
inside the house and also closed her mouth with a cloth. Thereafter
he committed rape on her. Immediately it was informed to the
respondent and the complaint was lodged by the defacto
complainant.
10.P.W.1/Victim categorically deposed that when the
victim called the petitioner through phone, he invited her into his
house. He compelled her to come inside the house and immediately
locked the door. He raped her by closing her mouth with a cloth.
Therefore, her inskirt had blood stained since while committing rape
she sustained injury. The petitioner also threatened her not to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.77 of 2018
disclose to anybody about the rape committed by him. Immediately
after reaching her house, the victim informed to her uncle.
Thereafter, informed to her parents and she was taken to the
hospital for treatment. While she was under treatment informed to
the respondent and after recording her statement, F.I.R was
registered.
11.The blood-stained inskirts were produced as M.O.1
and M.O.2. She further deposed that after the rape she had
bleeding. It was also corroborated by her parents, who were
examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3. On the next day, they informed the
same to the respondent and thereafter recorded the statement of
the victim and registered the F.I.R. Further, the Doctor who treated
the victim was examined as P.W.7. The Doctor deposed that she
found fresh blood bleeding on the victim in both legs. She also
found injuries on the victim's vagina. At the time of examination,
there was bleeding from her vagina and as such, she opined that
she was subjected to rape. She recorded the same in the accident
register, which was marked as Ex.P.5. It clearly corroborated the
evidence of P.W.1. Though the Doctor was not able to subject her to
a medical examination in order to verify the hymen since she had
pain and fear after the rape committed by the petitioner, it is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.77 of 2018
fatal to the case of the prosecution since there is no need to prove
that the hymen ruptured, or it is not intact to prove the charge of
rape. There was fresh blood bleeding from her private parts, and
the blood-stained inskirts were produced as M.O.1 and M.O.2. That
apart, P.W.7 deposed that she was subjected to rape and as such
she sustained injuries on her vagina and due to which there was
blood bleeding. Therefore, the prosecution categorically proved its
case beyond any doubt and both the Courts below rightly convicted
the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C.
This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order of conviction
and sentence imposed by the Courts below and the Civil Revision
Case is liable to be dismissed.
12.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
The trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps to secure the
petitioner in order to serve the remaining period of sentence.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
28.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.77 of 2018
To
1.The Mahila Court,
Karur.
2.The Assistant Sessions Judge,
Karur.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Vellianai Police Station,
Vellianai,
Karur District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.77 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.77 of 2018
28.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
