Madras High Court
G.Selvam vs The State on 7 August, 2024
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
CRLA.No.623 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 07.08.2024
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
Crl.A.No.623 of 2017
and Crl.M.P.No.12492 of 2017
G.Selvam ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State,
Rep. by Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station
Sethiyathope
(Crime No.4 of 2014) ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. to set
aside the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant
by an order dated 29.06.2017 passed in S.C.No.172 of 2015, passed by
the District Mahila Sessions Court, Cuddalore and allow the above
criminal appeal.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ragavendran
For Respondent : Dr.C.E.Pratap
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRLA.No.623 of 2017
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred challenging the judgment of the District Mahila
Sessions Court, Cuddalore in S.C.No.172 of 2015, under which the
learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the
offences U/s.376(2) (n), 450 and 506(i) I.P.C.
2.The case of the prosecution commences with Ex.P1, complaint,
preferred by the prosecutrix was later examined as PW1 receiving which
PW6 registered Ex.P5, F.I.R. The quintessence as disclosed in the F.I.R.
is that the appellant / accused is a distant relative of the prosecutrix, that
he is living in the neighbourhood, that the prosecutrix has lost her father
and was living with her maternal grand mother and on 20.05.2012 the
appellant entered the house of the prosecutrix and forced himself upon
her and committed rape under intimidation. The prosecutrix was duly
sent for medical examination and she was examined by PW4. Besides
PW5, the Radiologist, took certain x-rays to ascertain the approximate
age of the prosecutrix and has given in Ex.P3, age certificate, as per which
the prosecutrix at the relevant time was anywhere between 20 and 22
years. It may have to be stated here that the F.I.R. was registered after the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
prosecutrix has begotten a child. Hence, PW7, the investigating officer
has obtained a D.N.A. test report of the child. The said report was
marked during trial as Ex.P8, which confirms that the child born to the
prosecutrix was born to her through the appellant. Concluding her
investigation, PW7 laid a final report based on which the trial Court
framed necessary charges as outlined above.
3.Post trial, on appreciating the evidence before it, the trial Court found
the appellant guilty of all the charges laid against him and sentenced as
below:
Accused Offence Sentence imposed
U/s.450 I.P.C. R.I. for 5 years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in
default to undergo R.I. for 6 months.
Accused U/s.376(2) (n) R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- in
I.P.C. default R.I. for 1 year.
U/s.506(i) I.P.C. R.I. for 1 year.
This judgment is now under challenge. Heard both sides.
4.The learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
a) PW1 in her cross examination has disclosed that she has been
having physical relationship with the appellant multiple times
over a period of time, but she has never raised any objection at
any time. Indeed, she did not level any accusation against the
appellant till she begotten child. Significantly, the prosecutrix
was an adult and she knew or atleast ought to know that what
she was engaging in. The trial Court, however, overlooked this
part of the cross examination of PW1.
b) When the appeal was preferred, this Court tried to find what
best could be done to the child born to the prosecutrix through
the appellant, for which purpose it referred the matter to
mediation. The result of the mediation was not a solution for the
child that was already born, but on the contrary ended up with
them having a second child.
5.With considerable amusement, this Court tried to ascertain the last
mentioned fact, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) on
instruction by the investigating agency reported that the said statement is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
true. Indeed, the learned counsel for the appellant even circulated the
birth certificate of the 2nd child born to the appellant.
6.There are no rules in love and war and so say the same and this case
perhaps stands as a testimony to this statement. Neither prosecution nor
conviction separated the prosecutrix and the appellant. At the end of the
day, parties are adults and the constitution of the country does not make a
moralistic statement, wherein grant citizens their life to live and if the
prosecutrix and the appellant choose their way to live on their free will.
There is no precious thing the legal system can do except recording its
finding that in this instant case, prosecution has not been able to establish
that there indeed was a crime. In fact, there is an abuse of judicial
process when the prosecutrix set a criminal law in motion, perhaps with
a false F.I.R. But then, that is a story of the past and this Court does not
intent to revisit the issue.
7.In the result, the above criminal appeal stands allowed and the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
kas
/ accused by the District Mahila Sessions Court, Cuddalore in S.C.No.172
of 2015, vide Judgment dated 29.06.2017 are hereby set aside. The
appellant / accused is acquitted from all charges levelled against him.
Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to him. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.08.2024
kas
Index : yes / no
Neutral Citation
To
1. The District Mahila Sessions Court
Cuddalore
2.The Inspector of Police
All Women Police Station
Sethiyathope
(Crime No.4 of 2014)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
