Madras High Court
Dinesh Babu vs State Represented By on 7 November, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
2025:MHC:2585
Crl.A.No.366 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.11.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN
Crl.A.No.366 of 2019
Dinesh Babu ... Appellant
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector Of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Sethiathope, Cuddalore District
(Cr.No.7 of 2016) ... Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the
judgment of Sessions Judge, Magalir Court, Cuddalore, in S.C.No.160 of
2017 dated 01.02.2019.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Soundar Vijay Arul Ram
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated
01.02.2019 in S.C.No.160 of 2017 on the file of learned Sessions Judge,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:04 pm )
Magalir Court, Cuddalore, the appellant/accused has filed the instant
criminal appeal.
2. The accused was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as
follows:
Conviction Sentence
1 Section 376(2)(1) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for
of IPC life i.e., imprisonment for the natural life
of the accused and to pay a fine of
Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for one year
2 Section 294(b) of To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3
IPC months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment
for fifteen days
These sentences were ordered to run concurrently
3.The case of the prosecution is as follows :
PW7, the victim, is aged about 25 years and she is the daughter PW1.
On 20.10.2016, at about 03.00pm, she went for nature's call, at that time, the
accused pushed her down and touched her private part and also forcibly
inserted his penis into the victim's mouth and on hearing the cry of the girl,
PW1 rushed to the spot and on seeing PW1, the accused left the place and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:04 pm )
went to the nearby temple. PW1 gave a complaint on 24.10.2016 at about
15.30 hours. PW9 (Mrs.Padma, Sub-Inspector of Police), who received the
complaint, registered an FIR for offences under Sections 294(b) and 376 IPC
under Ex.P5 and forwarded the same to the Court and a copy was sent to the
Investigation Officer. PW9 also recorded the statement of PW7. PW10
(Mr.Veeramani, Inspector of Police) took up the investigation and went to
the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Magazar (Ex.P2) in the
presence of PW3 and also had drawn a rough sketch (Ex.P6) and recorded
the statement of witnesses and arrested the accused and sent him to the
judicial custody. In the meanwhile, PW6, the Medical Officer examined the
victim on 24.10.2016 at 07.45pm and the victim has stated that she was
sexually assaulted by the accused on 20.10.2016 at 03.00pm and PW6 did
not find any stain in the dress or injuries on the private parts, thighs etc.,
though abrasions were found on the left hand elbow and left knee. According
to PW6, the victim was not mentally retarded but only a sub-normal person
and she has clearly given the statement. PW2 is the son-in-law in PW1, who
asked PW1 to go to the police station along with one Sridhar or Srilan. PW4
has also seen PW1 and has stated that the accused was spotted with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:04 pm )
victim. PW5 has stated that he has also seen the altercation between PW1
and accused on 20.10.2016 at 04.00pm and has pacified the accused and sent
him. PW10 conducted investigation and laid a final report.
4. The Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation, laid
the final report against the accused for the offences under Sections 376(2)(1)
and 294(b) of IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil.
5. On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
was complied with and the case was committed to the learned Principal
District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore as contemplated under Section 209
of CrPC in S.C.No.160 of 2017 and was made over to Mahila Court,
Cuddalore, for trial.
6.The trial Court framed the charges for the offences under Sections
376(2)(1) and 294(b) of IPC against the accused. When questioned, the
accused pleaded “not guilty”.
7.To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 10
witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked Exs.P1 to P6.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:04 pm )
8.The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence and materials on record, by judgment dated 01.02.2019, found the
accused guilty of the offences under Sections 376(2)(1) and 294(b) of IPC
and thereby, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra.
9. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the instant appeal is filed
by the appellant.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that
the entire case is a put up case due to previous enmity between the accused
family and PW2 family and the very complaint (Ex.P1) itself came to be
filed on the instruction given by PW2. It is submitted that the entire case has
been projected only to fix the accused in a grave crime and the medical
examination conducted on the victim does not show any injury whatsoever
in the private part and this by itself falsify the theory of inserting finger in
the private part. The learned counsel further submitted that if really any such
incident had taken place, the villagers would not have spared the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:04 pm )
appellant/accused and no independent witness has been examined except
the family members of PW1 and there was undue delay in filing the FIR.
The compliant was filed only on 23.10.2016 but the alleged occurrence said
to have taken place on 20.10.2016. The very evidence of PW2 indicate that
he has instructed PW1 to give the complaint with the help of Srilan or
Sridhar, PW1 has also stated as if she has gone with those persons to the
Police Station. The complaint has not been given on the same day. It is his
further submission that FIR has been lodged only at the instance of PW2,
after three days and the delay in filing the complaint has not been properly
explained, which creates serious doubt. That apart, absolutely there is no
evidence to show that PW7 was subjected to sexual harassment. The learned
counsel further submitted that the allegation of the prosecution that sexual
harassment said to have taken place only when the victim was attending
nature's call is also highly improbable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:04 pm )
11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the
evidence of the victim would show that the accused inserted his finger in the
private part of the victim and also inserted his penis in her mouth and the
victim has also narrated the incident to PW1 and other witnesses also seen
the altercation. Therefore, the evidence of the victim, who is a subnormal
person, cannot be disbelieved.
12.We have perused the entire materials available on record.
13. Normally in a case of sexual harassment if the solitary evidence of
victim, who was subjected to sexual harassment, inspires the confidence of
the Court de hors other evidence, such solitary evidence itself is sufficient
to base the conviction. It is admittedly not the case of any penetrative sex.
It is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused has inserted his finger
in the private part of the victim who is stated to be a subnormal person.
Except stating that she is sub-normal, no medical evidence in this regard is
available to substantiate the same. Further, PW6, the medical officer has
stated that the victim was subnormal but her evidence would indicate that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:04 pm )
the victim was clear in thoughts and she has narrated the incident. However,
to arrive a conclusion that the victim is subnormal, the nature of the
assessment made by the Medical Officer has not been placed before this
Court.
14. The contention of PW7 is that while she was attending the nature's
call, the accused came there and inserted his finger in her private part and
penis in her mouth and therefore, she fell down and her dresses also stained
with human excreta, which has been washed later. The contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant/accused is that the entire case has been
foisted as there is a dispute between the two families. From a careful perusal
of evidence of Medical Officer, it is seen that there is no scratch, mark or
abrasion on the face or private part of the victim except some abrasion on
the left hand and right thigh. The Medical Officer did not notice any other
marks. PW1 though examined by the police, she never stated that there was
an injury on PW7 whereas the injuries have been noted only after four days
when the victim was taken to the hospital on 24.10.2016. If really any such
incident has happened, the normal conduct of the person, particularly the
mother would be to rush to the police station immediately. There was no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:04 pm )
explanation as to why the complaint has not been given for more than three
days.
15. PW2 is son-in-law of PW1. His evidence clearly indicate that he
has instructed PW1 to go to the Police Station along with one Srilan (PW5)
or Sridhar. PW1 in her evidence has also stated that she has gone with those
person to the police station. However, no complaint whatsoever came to
light. The other evidences, if carefully perused, would show that there are
disputes between two families. PW1 herself has admitted in her evidence
that there were no talking terms between accused family and her family and
there is enmity between two families for more than two years and PW1 also
not in talking terms with the accused. Further, the cross-examination of
PW1 would clearly show that she never accompanied any relative to the
police station. Having admitted that she accompanied one Srilan and Baskar
to the police station, she has changed her version in the cross-examination.
The Baskar was examined as PW4. He has not stated anything about
accompanying PW1 to the police station and PW2's evidence would indicate
that only after his duty, he visited the place on 23.10.2016, went to the police
station and gave a complaint and in fact he has feign ignorance to the dispute
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:04 pm )
existed between his sister's daughter Divya and the accused family and this
aspect has been admitted by others. When the evidence of PW7, the so
called victim, if carefully perused, she has clearly admitted that there were
dispute between two families and PW2 has already given a complaint
against uncle of the accused and in that case uncle of the accused was
acquitted. Further, she has also admitted that, they will act only as per the
instructions of PW2. The specific evidence of PW7, the victim is as follows:
“ “mJ rk;ke;jkhf vd; khkh xU tHf;F
bfhLj;J mJ rpjk;tuk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; ele;jj
vd;why; Mkhk;/ me;j tHf;fpy; vjphpapd; jha;khkd;
tpLjiy Mfptpl;lhu; vd;why; Mkhk;/ v';fs;
Flk;gj;ij bghWj;jtiu v';fs; mf;fh tPl;Lf;fhuu;
rptFkhu; brhy;go eh';fs; nfl;nghk; vd;why; rupjhd;/
v';f mk;kht[k; rptFkhh; brhy;go nfl;ghu; vd;;why;
rupjhd;. ehd; brhd;dhYk; vd; mk;kh nfl;ghu;/
rptFkhh; khkh brhy;ypj;jhd; eh';fs; g[fhh;
bfhLj;njhk; vd;why; Mkhk;/”
16. The above evidence clearly indicate that the complaint itself came
to be filed at the instance of PW2. Admittedly, there was previous enmity.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:04 pm )
Though PW7 has stated that she visited the hospital on the same day, the
said fact is falsified by the evidence of PW6, the Medical Officer. PW6
evidence clearly shows that for the first time, the victim was brought to the
hospital on 24.10.2016, after four days of the alleged occurrence. PW6 has
not noted any external injuries except the abrasion and that abrasion is also
not explained. Even in Ex.P1 complaint and in her evidence, the victim has
not stated anything about so called injuries said to have been caused whereas
the Medical Officer do not find any injuries in the private part to suggest
alleged insertion of the finger and she has also not found any scratches
whatsoever on the face to show that the accused has forcibly inserted his
penis.
17. Considering these aspects, we are of the view that the version of
PW7 is highly doubtful especially in the background of previous enmity
existed between the families and entire genesis has been introduced only on
the instruction of PW2 with whom there was a dispute existed. Therefore,
though in a sexual offence case, even in the absence of medical evidence, if
the victim's statement inspires the confidence of the Court, the Court will
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:04 pm )
normally believe the statement of the victim. However, when the entire
prosecution theory clearly indicates possible framing of the case against the
accused due to some other motive, merely on the basis of such evidence, the
accused cannot be convicted for the grave crime. Hence, we find that there
is no material to hold that there was sexual abuse. Hence the conviction
ordered by the trial Court has to be interfered with and accused has to be
acquitted from the case.
Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed and the judgment of
the trial Court dated 01.02.2019 in S.C.No.160 of 2017, is set aside, and the
appellant / accused is acquitted of all the charges framed against him. Fine
amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused, shall be refunded to him. Bail
bond executed by the appellant shall stand discharged.
(N.S.K., J.) (M.J.R., J.)
07.11.2025
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
gpa
To
1. The Sessions Judge,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:04 pm )
Magalir Court, Cuddalore
2. The Inspector Of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Sethiathope, Cuddalore District
3. The Public Prosecutor
Madras High Court, Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:04 pm )
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
and
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
gpa
07.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2025 04:41:04 pm )
