Madras High Court

Vadivel Murugan vs The Inspector Of Police on 25 June, 2025

                                                                                     Crl.A(MD)No.493 of 2018

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                             DATED: 25.06.2025

                                                      CORAM:

                                  THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                          Crl.A(MD)No.493 of 2018

                  Vadivel Murugan
                                                                                               ... Appellant
                                                            Vs
                  The Inspector of Police,
                  R.S. Mangalam Police Station,
                  Ramnad District, Crime No.2/2013.
                                                                                             ... Respondent


                  Prayer: This Criminal Appeal Case filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C to
                  call for the records and set aside the portion of the order of conviction and
                  sentence passed in SC No.81 of 2014, dated 04.07.2018 on the file of the
                  learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, FAC, Fast Track Mahila
                  Court, Ramanathapuram and allow this appeal and acquit the appellant /
                  accused from the charge leveled against him.


                                      For Appellant          :        Mr. M.Murugesan

                                      For Respondent :                Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
                                                                      Additional Public Prosecutor




                  1/18


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis            ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 11:41:04 am )
                                                                                           Crl.A(MD)No.493 of 2018



                                                         JUDGMENT

The present Criminal Appeal has been filed challenging the

judgment of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, FAC, Fast

Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, dated 04.07.2018 made in SC No.81

of 2014.

2.The appellant is the sole accused, who has been convicted

and sentenced in the following manner:

S. Provisions under which Sentence of imprisonment Fine amount No convicted Rs.25,000/-, in default 376 IPC 10 Years rigorous imprisonment to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment Rs.20,000/-, in default 1 307 IPC 10 Years rigorous imprisonment to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment Rs.1,000/-, in default to 307 r/w 511 IPC Two Years simple imprisonment undergo 1 week simple imprisonment

The sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

3.As per the case of the prosecution, on 01.10.2013 at about

9:30 a.m., when the victim PW1 was at her house, the accused came there

and asked her to give some water. After she had given the water, he

trespassed inside the house and raped her forcibly and thereafter injured her

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 11:41:04 am )

by pushing her on the stone pillar and then, he left the place. PW2, who

went to the house of PW1 had seen her lying with blood injuries and came

to know about the occurrence by enquiring PW1. Thereafter, she informed

the occurrence to her brother and he arranged to take her to the Hospital

with the help of the other witnesses.

4.The accused was subjected to trial and at the conclusion of

the trial, he was found guilty for the offences under Sections 376, 307, 307

r/w 511 IPC and he was convicted and punished as stated above. Aggrieved

over that, the accused has preferred this appeal.

5.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a

false case filed against the accused due to election motive and the allegation

that the accused had trespassed into the house of PW1 itself was not proved

and that will only imply his non involvement in the entire case. He further

submitted that the Doctor's evidence did not support the case of the

prosecution and that was only totally ignored by the trial Judge.

6.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

submitted that PW1 is the victim, who has stated about the occurrence and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 11:41:04 am )

she was found to be in a dangerous condition by PW2 and thereafter, she

was taken to the hospital. As the accused was known to her, she had stated

his name and the details of the occurrence and that she was raped by him.

The trial Court has given due credence to the evidence of the victim and the

other witnesses, who came to know the occurrence through PW1 and the

consequence of events that unfolded subsequently.

7.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made on either side and carefully perused the records.

8.The complaint statement was given by PW1, while she was

taking treatment at the hospital. The complaint statement of the victim was

also attested by PW2 and PW7.

9.PW1 has stated in her evidence that on 01.01.2013 at about

9:30 AM, when she was at her house, the accused came to her house and

asked her to bring water. When she brought water from inside, the accused

had poured away the water and came into the house and bolted the door and

asked her to share bed with him. As she she did not agree, he attacked her,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 11:41:04 am )

removed her skirt and buttons of the blouse and lifted her skirt and lied on

her. As she would tell the occurrence to others, he attempted to murder her

by dashing her against the stone pillar. Thereafter, he went away believing

that she died.

10.PW1 was examined as a witness before the Court and she

has stated that on the day of occurrence, ie., 01.01.2013 at about 9:30 PM,

the accused came to her house and asked some water. After she brought

water, he threw away the water and raped her by force. When she told that

she would tell this to others, he forcibly hit her against the stone pillar and

then went away. At about 3:00 PM, PW2, PW3, PW6 and one Pushpam

came and saw her lying in dangerous condition. After she told them about

the occurrence, they took her to the hospital. As she was unable to walk,

she was taken in an Autorickshaw. Firstly, she was brought to Government

Hospital, RS Mangalam and thereafter, she was referred to Government

Hospital, Ramnad.

11.In the cross examination of PW1, it was not suggested to her

that the accused had contested the election and she had worked against him.

It was only suggested that when one Muthusami was the Panchayat

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 11:41:04 am )

President and when he contested, PW1 was in support of him. It was

suggested to her that one Vedamanickam was contesting the election against

Muthusami and the accused had worked in support of Vedamanickam. So it

is suggested that she had given complaint only at the instructions of

Muthusami. PW1 had denied the same. It is also suggested to her that she

used to get seizure and she had taken treatment for the same and it was

suggested that on the alleged day, she had seizure and in view of that she

fell down on a stone pillar.

12.When the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b)

of Cr.P.C, he has not stated about any of these aspects in his statement. He

had simply stated that he has not involved in the occurrence. Neither the

accused was examined as a witness on his side.

13.The day of occurrence was New Year and was a Tuesday.

PW1 has stated that she was hit against the stone pillar by the accused. Her

evidence on this aspect is consistent, even before the police, during her

chief examination and cross examination.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 11:41:04 am )

14.PW2 had invited PW1 for lunch to her house, in view of

New Year. Since PW1 has not come for lunch, PW2 had been to the house

of PW1. As the front side door was locked, she went through the backside

door and noticed that the victim was lying in a pool of blood without any

dress on her body. On seeing PW1 in such a pathetic condition, she

immediately alerted the neighbours and PW3 and PW5 came there. After

sprinkling water on the face of PW1, they enquired PW1. PW1 told them

about the occurrence. Thereafter, only PW1 was taken to the hospital in the

Ambulance.

15.Even PW2 has stated that she had also seen the accused

asking water to PW1. It was suggested to her that she could not have seen

the House of PW1. Even if PW2 has not seen the accused asking water

from PW1, the evidence of PW1 on this aspect need not be doubted,

because her evidence following the occurrence are very much natural and

the witnesses have spoken about how they found PW1 in the place of

occurrence and how they took her to the hospital. So this natural sequence

of events along with the evidence of PW1 cannot be ignored by presuming

that there was an election motive as suggested on behalf of the defence.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 11:41:04 am )

16.It is already stated in the 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., statement that

the accused did not state before the court that there was motive for the

complainant. In fact, PW2 had informed the occurrence to the brother of

PW1, Arockiasamy, who has been examined as PW7 and he had also arrived

to the occurrence spot. He was also informed by the witnesses, who had

seen PW1 immediately after the occurrence about the involvement of the

accused. So as a brother, it is quite natural for him to rush to the spot to help

his sister, PW1.

17.It is right for the trial Judge to believe the evidence of the

witnesses PW1 to PW7, who have stated about the occurrence and the

events following the occurrence in a very natural and cogent manner. Even

though there are some minor contradictions they are insignificant.

18.PW6 had seen the accused going to the house of PW1 on the

day of occurrence on the way and later, she learnt that he had sexually

assaulted PW1. Even during the cross examination, she has stated about the

time, when she noticed the accused as 9:30p.m., which tallied with the

evidence of PW1.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 11:41:04 am )

19.It is the contention of the appellant that the victim has stated

before the Doctor, when she was taken to the hospital for treatment that she

was raped by an unknown person. The AR entry and the wound certificate

in this regard has been marked as Ex.P.8 and Ex.P9. The Doctor, who

examined the victim (PW1) has been examined as PW11. Even in the

evidence, the Doctor has stated that PW1 has given the statement to him

that she was sexually assaulted by an unknown person.

20.Strangely, it is seen that in Ex.P.8 that it is mentioned as 'an

unknown person”. The handwriting in Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 are different. In

Ex.P.8, the handwriting is not very clear but running. Close reading of the

contents of Ex.P.9, it is seen that the history has been noted as “Assault

with an attempt to rape by a known person at about morning 09.30 p.m., on

01.01.2013”. If a person, who knows English would only write unknown

as 'an unknown'.

21.Even though the handwriting of the Doctor as seen in Ex.P9

is running, it can be freely read as “a known person” instead of “unknown

person”. In Ex.P8, it is seen that all the words are distinct and it is not

running letters. The Doctor appears to have written as “a known person”,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 11:41:04 am )

not “a unknown person”. The pattern of the writing as it appears is that the

writer gives a gap between one letter and other letter. But between “a” and

“unknown” there is no gap. It gives a doubt whether the letters “un” has

been subsequently inserted in the gap between “a” and “known”.

22.Whatever may be the case, the evidence of the Doctor on

this aspect about the person, who had involved in the occurrence is not

strong enough to defeat the direct account of PW1, where she crystal clearly

referred the name of the accused. One thing, which cannot be omitted is that

the statement of PW1 given before the Doctor.

23.Even in the complaint statement of PW1, she has not stated

unambiguous words that she was raped by the accused. Though the manner

in which PW1 was found in the place of occurrence with injuries and the

misbehavior of the accused as alleged by her would evidence the fact that

the accused had committed sexual assault on PW1, but it was not clear

whether he had committed any penetrative sexual assault, like rape.

24.PW16, had examined the victim and assessed her medical

age. PW1 is not claimed to be a minor. Hence, it is not known why the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 11:41:04 am )

prosecution had taken the pain of subjecting her to radiological examination

to ascertain her age.

25.PW16, Doctor has stated in her evidence that when she

examined the victim, she did not find any symptoms on the victim that she

had recent sexual intercourse. The PW16 had examined the victim only on

04.01.2013 and the occurrence had taken place on 01.01.2013. PW1 was on

medical treatment between the period from 01.01.2013 and 04.01.2013,

since PW1 was under the medical treatment, the symptoms could have been

healed or disappeared. That cannot be taken as an advantage by the accused

to claim that the medical evidence is completely against the case of the

prosecution.

26.Coming back to the compliant as Ex.P.1, it is seen that some

words are intersected as follows:

“vd; ghthilia J}f;fp vd; Nky; gLj;jhd;”

Though that part is very important to make out a prima facie case for rape,

that has been intercepted and that has been written by making interlineation.

But in the evidence of PW1, she has stated that “;nfLj;J tpl;lhd;”. In

villages like PW1's residence, people used to say the word “nfLj;J” to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 11:41:04 am )

mean the act of rape.

27.When PW2 and other witnesses came to the house of PW1

and saw her undressed, that would also probablise her statement before the

Court, about the act of rape committed by the accused on the date of

occurrence. So the concrete evidence of PW1 and the evidence of other

witnesses, who had stated about the events following the occurrence would

neutralize the significance attached to the interlineation made in the FIR and

it could have been a genuine incidental, omission, which was rectified

subsequently by interlineation.

28.Fortunately or unfortunately, the SI of Police, who had

registered the FIR by getting the complaint statement was examined as

PW19. She was not cross examined as to the interlineation in the

complaint. Even PW1 or the other witnesses, who attested Ex.P.1

complaint were also not cross examined in respect of the interlineation.

29.The evidence of the witnesses would reveal that the accused

had already entered into the house of PW1 by asking water. The learned trial

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 11:41:04 am )

Judge arrived at a conclusion that there was no trespass only on that ground

that the accused was not found guilty for the offence under Section 450 of

IPC and that alone cannot help the accused to get a clean chit in respect of

other charges.

30.So far as the offence of rape under Section 376 is concerned,

there are sufficient evidence available on record and there is nothing to

reject the evidence of the victim, PW1 and rest of the witnesses, who came

to the place of occurrence shortly after the occurrence and heard about the

occurrence from PW1 and their spontaneous actions, on hearing the same.

31.On the side of accused, it was not suggested to the Doctor,

who examined the accused that the accused is impotent. From the evidence

of the Forensic Expert, it is seen that the Material Objects did not contain

blood or spermatozoa. It all depends on how nearer the objects were

available in order to have the stain of blood or spermatozoa. As the victim

and the witnesses have stated that the victim was without dress on her, it

may not be possible to trace out such a content during the scientific

examination.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 11:41:04 am )

32.The learned trial Judge has made proper analysis of the

evidence of the victim and other witnesses in a proper perspective and had

given sufficient reasons, as to how he relied their evidence in order to

convict the accused for the offence under Section 376 IPC.

33.So far as the offence under Section 307 is concerned, it is

submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused did not

have any preparation to murder the victim and the injuries on the body of

PW1 was found to be simple in nature.

34.Much stress was made in respect of the radiological report,

where it is observed that there was no injuries on the body of PW1 except

the eye lid contusion. It is surprising to see Ex.P.12, Doctor certificate,

which is dated 13.03.2014. As the Doctor had given her opinion after one

year, she would have examined the victim on that particular day and hence,

PW16 evidence is totally irrelevant and unnecessary.

35.The victim was first seen and treated by PW11, who has

issued Ex.P8 and Ex.P.9 and stated that the victim had blood injury on the

back of her head and on the left eye and there was a simple injury over her

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 11:41:04 am )

upper leg.

36.In fact, the victim was treated as an inpatient. The records

maintained by the Medical Officer show that the victim had taken treatment

as an inpatient for nearly ten days. The limited particulars recorded by the

Doctor itself is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the victim was

sexually assaulted by the accused on the day of occurrence and she was

sexually assaulted by committing the offence of rape.

37.It is seen from the complaint of PW1 and her evidence that

the accused had the intention to have sex with her and not to murder her.

Even according to the evidence of PW1, since she told him that she would

tell the occurrence to others, the accused had attacked her by hitting her

head on the stone pillar. So the act of the accused on this aspect appears to

be sudden and not with an intention to kill her.

38.I feel that the ingredients on this aspect could prove an

offence under section 324 and not 307 IPC. As the accused had hit the

victim against a rough material like stone pillar and she has suffered

injuries, I feel the accused should have been punished for the offence under

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 11:41:04 am )

Section 324 instead of 307.

39.It is strange to see that the charges have been framed under

Section 307 r/w 511 IPC. The offence under Section 307 itself is an attempt

when there is a specific provision for the offence of attempt to murder, there

is no necessity to convict the accused under Section 511 IPC.

40. In fine, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in the

following terms:

● the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the

offence under Section 307 r/w 511 IPC are set aside;

● the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the

offence under Section 307 IPC are set aside, instead the appellant

is convicted for the offence under Section 324IPC and sentenced to

undergo TWO YEARS rigorous imprisonment for the offence

under Section 324 IPC;

● the conviction imposed by the trial Court for the offence under

Section 376 IPC shall remain unaltered;

● both the sentences are ordered to be run concurrently;

● the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant

shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 11:41:04 am )

● the bail bond executed by the accused shall stand terminated and

the trial Court is directed to take the accused into custody for

serving the remaining portion of the sentence.