[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Chandru @ Chandrasekaran vs The State Rep. By on 19 February, 2026

    2026:MHC:879
                                                                                          CRL A No.760 of 2023


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                   DATED: 19-02-2026
                                                            CORAM
                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
                                                 CRL A No. 760 of 2023

               Chandru @ Chandrasekaran
               S/o.Thangarasu,
               Maruthuva Theru,
               Vellipalayam,
               Nagapattinam District.
               Convict No. 16047,
               Now Convict Prisoner,
               Central Prison, Cuddalore.
                                                                                               ...Appellant
                                                                 Vs
                The State rep. by
                Inspector of Police,
                Vellipalayam Police Station,
                Nagapattinam District.
                Cr.No.37/2016.
                                                                                            ...Respondent

                Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure
                Code to set aside the order of conviction of sentence passed by the learned
                Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagapattinam in S.C.117/2016 dated
                27.12.2016.
                              For Appellant:                Mr.R.Ganesh



                              For Respondent:               Mr.S.Raja Kumar
                                                            Additional Public Prosecutor




                                                                                                  __________
                                                                                                  Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                 ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 02:10:12 pm )
                                                                                         CRL A No.760 of 2023


                                                       JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused, challenging the

Judgment dated 27.12.2016 passed in S.C.No.117 of 2016 by the learned

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagapattinam, convicting him for the

offence under Section 376(2)(m) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter

referred to as “the IPC”) and sentencing him to undergo fourteen years of

rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one

year of simple imprisonment.

2(a). The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused, aged about

28 years at the time of the occurrence, had committed rape on the victim, aged

about 80 years at the time of the occurrence, on 06.02.2016 at about 4.00 a.m.,

behind a temple situated in the village where both the appellant/accused and the

victim were residing; and that the appellant had caused hurt to the victim and

thereafter committed rape on the victim and thus committed the aforesaid

offence.

(b). On a complaint [Ex.P2] given by P.W.2, the daughter of the victim,

P.W.10, the Inspector of Police, registered an FIR [Ex.P9] in Crime No.37 of

2016 for the offences under Sections 324 and 376 of the IPC, and thereafter

P.W.10 conducted the investigation and filed the Final Report against the

__________ Page2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 02:10:12 pm )

accused for the offence under Section 376(2)(l)(m) of the IPC before the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.2, Nagapattinam, which was taken on file as

P.R.C.No.17 of 2016.

Cr.P.C. were complied with, committed to the Court of Sessions, i.e., the Fast

Track Mahila Court, Nagapattinam, and made over to the learned Sessions

Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagapattinam, for trial, which was taken on

file as S.C.No.117 of 2016. The Trial Court had framed the charge under

Section 376(2)(m) of the IPC against the accused. The accused, in response to

the charge, had pleaded guilty. Since the offence against the accused was

serious in nature, the prosecution had examined all the witnesses to prove the

charge against the appellant.

(d) To prove its case, the prosecution had examined 10 witnesses as

P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked 14 exhibits as Exs.P1 to P14, besides three

material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.3. When the accused was questioned, u/s.313

Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he accepted

the same as true and further stated that he was inebriated at the time of the

occurrence. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any

document on his side.

__________ Page3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 02:10:12 pm )

(e) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court

found the accused/appellant guilty of the offence under Section 376(2)(m) of

the IPC and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as stated in the first

paragraph of this Judgment. Hence, the accused has preferred the instant appeal

challenging the said conviction and sentence.

3. Mr.R.Ganesh, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, submitted

that both P.W.1, victim, and P.W.2, the daughter of the victim, were not aware

of the identity of the appellant/accused; that P.W.2, in her cross-examination,

admitted that she had not lodged the complaint; that before the Doctor and in

her 164 Cr.P.C. statement, the victim had stated that an unknown person had

committed rape, which is contrary to her deposition in Court; that in light of the

above infirmities, the Trial Court ought not to have found the appellant guilty of

the offence; and that in any case, the sentence imposed on the appellant is

disproportionate and prayed for leniency in the sentence.

4.Mr.S.Raja Kumar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing

for the respondent, per contra, submitted that though the entries made in the

Accident Register [Ex.P8] would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution,

P.W.2, daughter of the victim, had named the appellant in the FIR; that her __________ Page4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 02:10:12 pm )

innocuous admission in the cross-examination that her mother gave the

complaint would not render the prosecution case doubtful; that P.W.1, the

victim, had deposed in her evidence that she knew the appellant even before the

occurrence as they both resided in the same street; and that the infirmities

pointed out by the appellant/accused would lose significance in the light of the

appellant/accused pleading guilty to the charge.

5. As stated above, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. P.W.1 is the

victim, aged about 80 years. P.W.2 is the daughter of the victim and de-facto

complainant. P.W.3 is in charge of the temple behind which the occurrence had

taken place. He had signed as a witness in the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P3] and

the Seizure Mahazar [Ex.P4]. P.W.4 is a hearsay witness and belongs to the

same village. P.W.5 is the learned Magistrate who had recorded the 164(5)

Cr.P.C. statement of the victim, P.W.1. P.W.6 is the Head Constable, who had

assisted the Investigating Officer. P.W.7 is the witness to the confession

statement of the accused, and the signature of the witness in the confession is

marked as Ex.P6. P.W.8 is the Doctor, who had examined the appellant/accused

and had issued Ex.P7, the potency certificate. P.W.9 is the Doctor, who had

examined the victim and made entries in the Accident Register, Ex.P8, and had

opined that the victim was subjected to sexual assault. P.W.10 is the

investigating officer who filed the final report.

__________ Page5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 02:10:12 pm )

6. The fact that the appellant/accused and the victim belonged to the same

village is spoken to by P.W.3 besides P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.2 in her complaint

has referred to the appellant as the accused. Though P.W.2 would state that the

contents of the complaint were dictated by her mother and she had signed it,

which is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1 and to the admission made by the

investigating officer as regards the manner in which the complaint was lodged.

This Court is of the view that the said discrepancy would hardly be of any

consequence in light of the cogent evidence of P.W.1 in her deposition.

7. In a case of this nature, the discrepancy pointed out by the learned

counsel for the appellant/accused would not render the victim's evidence

unreliable, as this Court finds that the victim's evidence inspires confidence.

Though it is the case of the prosecution that the victim was aged about 80 years,

the victim herself would state that her age was about 70 years at the time of her

deposition in Court. The victim had identified the appellant as the accused in

her deposition. She had also stated that she knew the appellant. The entries

made in the Accident Register [Ex.P8] that an unknown person had assaulted

the victim would not in any way affect the evidence of the victim in the facts

and circumstances of this case. Though it is the case of the appellant/accused

__________ Page6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 02:10:12 pm )

that the victim had not stated the name of the appellant in the 164 (5) Cr.P.C.

statement, it is seen that the victim has not been confronted with her statement

under 164 Cr.P.C. in the cross-examination. Further, the victim, P.W.1, had

specifically answered to a Court question, which reads as follows:

ePjpkd;w nfs;tp M$h; vjphpia rk;gtj;jpw;F Kd;g[ bjhpa[kh> gjpy; M$h; vjphp v';fs; bjU igad;/ mjdhy;

rk;gtj;jpw;F Kd;g[ M$h; vjphpia bjhpa[k;/

8. That apart, the Doctor, P.W.9, who had examined the victim and had

made entries in the Accident Register, Ex.P8, had specifically observed in the

final opinion that the victim would have been subjected to violent sexual

intercourse. The Doctor had also opined that spermatozoa was seen in the

smear.

9. In the light of the above evidence, this Court is of the view that the

impugned Judgment convicting the appellant for the offence under Section

376(2)(m) of the IPC, cannot be faulted. As stated above, the appellant pleaded

guilty to the charge and also admitted the guilt in the Section 313 Cr.P.C.,

questioning. However, considering the period of incarceration and the facts and

circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice

would be met if the appellant is sentenced to RI for a term of 10 years and to

__________ Page7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 02:10:12 pm )

pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer 3 months of SI. Accordingly, it

is ordered as follows:

(i) The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 376(2)(m) of the IPC, by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagapattinam, vide Judgment dated 27.12.2016 in S.C.No.117 of 2016, is confirmed.

(ii) However, the sentence imposed on the appellant, i.e., rigorous imprisonment for 14 years is reduced to RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to suffer 3 months of SI.