Madras High Court
Rajkumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 April, 2025
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
CRL MP(MD) NO. 4281 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23-04-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
CRL MP(MD) NO. 4281 of 2025
in
CRL A(MD)NO.405 of 2025
Rajkumar
S/o Donthi Gounder, South street, Muthanampatty, Aundipatti Taluk, Theni
District.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Andipatti Sub Division, G.Vilakku
Police station, Theni District. Crime No. 240/2019
Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S. Mahendra Pathy
For Respondent(s):
Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1
Mr.R.Karunanidhi for R2
ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in Spl.SC.No.183 of 2020 on the file of the Special
Court for Trial under SC / ST Act. He was tried for the offence u/s.376 IPC r/w
3(2)(v), 3(1)(w)(i) of SC / ST [POA] Act. The trial Court, in conclusion of the trial,
found him guilty for the offence u/s.376 r/w 511 IPC, Section 3(1)(w)(i) of SC /
ST [POA] Act, convicted and sentenced him as under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 07:24:58 pm )
Section of Law Punishment
376 r/w 511 IPC To undergo rigorous
imprisonment for five years and
to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, i/d to
undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one year
3(1)(w)(i) of SC / ST Act To undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months and
to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, i/d to
undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one month
Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed
Crl.A(MD)No.405 of 2025 and the same was admitted by this Court on 01.04.2025.
The petitioner has also moved this application seeking to suspend the sentence
imposed as against him.
2.Learned Counsel for the petitioner, by relying upon the evidence of the Doctors
[PW11, PW12], who attended the victim girl, submitted that no visible injury was
noticed. Therefore, the allegation of rape is not probable. According to him, there
was a dispute between PW1's son and the petitioner. Therefore, on this motive,
the case was foisted. He further submitted that the victim is having toilet facility
in her house, while so, the prosecution case that the victim was subjected to sexual
assault when she went to attend her natural call half-a-kilometre away from her
house is not probable. Therefore, he prayed for grant of suspension of sentence.
3.Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the occurrence took
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 07:24:58 pm )
place on 04.11.2019 at about 06.20 am. The complaint was lodged immediately
and the victim was taken to the Government Hospital, Kanavilaku at about 09.00
am. The Doctor, who examined the victim girl, has recorded the injuries in the
Accident Register, however, this Accident Register was not marked by the
prosecution during the trial. Learned Government Advocate has now produced
the Accident Register before this Court.
4.Learned Counsel for the second respondent, by referring to the evidence of
PW1, submitted that the PW1 has deposed the occurrence in a cogent manner.
Therefore, he prayed for dismissal.
5.This Court considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused
the materials placed on record.
6.This is a case of rape. The victim girl, who belong to Scheduled Caste
community, has went to attend her natural call in the morning hours on
04.11.2019 at about 06.30 am. The petitioner is said to have attempted to commit
rape on the victim girl. The complaint was lodged immediately and she was taken
to the Government Hospital on the same day at about 09.00 am. The Doctor
[PW12], who attended the victim, has recorded the injuries [Abrasion, Nail marks,
Bleeding, Contusion] in the Accident Register. However, strangely, this Accident
Register, the initial document, was not placed before the trial Court. In fact, the
Doctor has also given a vague reply in the evidence, without even perusing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 07:24:58 pm )
Accident Register.
7.Considering the materials available, this Court is not inclined to entertain this
application for suspension of sentence. Accordingly, this miscellaneous petition
stands dismissed.
8.Though the Accident Register is not a conclusive proof, the manner in which the
prosecution has been conducted without even marking the very initial document
cannot be appreciated. The concerned Public Prosecutor, who conducted the trial
in Spl.SC.No.183 of 2020, ought to have marked this initial document. Therefore,
this Court directs the Director of Prosecution, Chennai, to initiate appropriate
disciplinary proceedings as against the concerned Public Prosecutor.
9.Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the Director of Prosecution,
along with a copy of the Accident Register.
23-04-2025
gk
To
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Andipatti Sub Division,
G.Vilakku Police station, Theni District.
B.PUGALENDHI, J.,
gk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 07:24:58 pm )
CRL MP(MD) NO. 4281 of 2025
23-04-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/04/2025 07:24:58 pm )
