[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Senthil @ Senthilkumar vs State Rep. By on 7 January, 2026
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.A.No.227 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 25.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 07.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.A.No.227 of 2021
Senthil @ Senthilkumar ... Appellant
Vs.
1.State rep. by
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Tiruchengode Sub Division,
Namakkal District.
2.State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Molasi Police Station,
Namakkal District.
(Crime No.134 of 2013)
3.Chellammal ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the
records and set aside the conviction imposed in the judgment dated
03.11.2020 made in S.C.No.66 of 2015 on the file of the Special Court for
SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Namakkal.
Page No.1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:52 pm )
Crl.A.No.227 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.J.Ranjith Kumar
For R1 & R2 : Ms.J.R.Archana
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R3 : Mr.Vrindha
Legal Aid Counsel
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed to set aside the impugned judgment in
S.C.No.66 of 2015 dated 03.11.2020 on the file of the learned Sessions
Judge, Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Namakkal.
2.The appellant/accused in S.C.No.66 of 2015 was convicted by the
Trial Court by judgment dated 03.11.2020 and sentenced him to undergo ten
years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376(1) r/w. 511
IPC and to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the
offence under Section 451 IPC and the sentences to run concurrently.
3.The gist of the case is that the defacto complainant/PW1 was
residing in a line house in Manakattar Thottam at Manakkadu, Palur Village
and she belongs to Arunthathiyar Community listed under Scheduled Caste.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:52 pm )
The appellant/accused is a resident of Velliyampalayam and he belongs to
Vettuva Gounder Community listed under Most Backward Class. The
victim's husband working as a Driver in a Water Scheme and used to go to
work at night. Taking advantage of victim loneliness, the appellant/accused,
decided to exploit the victim sexually. On the intervening night of
05/06.09.2013 at about 1.00 a.m., when the victim was alone, the accused
forcibly entered the house of the victim, committed house trespass with an
intent to commit rape and forcibly had sexual intercourse against victim
wish without any concern, by gagging her mouth with his hands and also
intimidated her that she would be done away if she shouted or raised any
alarm. The appellant abused her by calling her caste name. The victim was
in a state of shock, kept to herself for a day and out of fear, she had not
immediately reacted. When her body pain became unbearable, she went to
the daughter-in-law/PW2 house and disclosed the act of the accused. PW2
took the victim to the Government Hospital, Tiruchengode where she was
given treatment, information sent to the respondent police from the Hospital.
PW10/Sub-Inspector of Police visited the Hospital, recorded the statement
of PW1/victim, who admitted the same and kept her left thumb impression.
Thereafter, FIR/Ex.P12 in Crime No.134 of 2013 registered. On the orders
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:52 pm )
of the Superintendent of Police, the FIR was placed to PW11/Deputy
Superintendent of Police for further investigation. In the meanwhile, the
victim was referred to Government Hospital, Salem for further examination
and treatment. PW11 took up investigation. On 08.09.2013 at about 6:30
a.m., PW11 visited the scene of the occurrence, prepared observation
mahazar/Ex.P14 and rough sketch/Ex.P15 in presence of witnesses,
examined witnesses present at the scene of the occurrence and collected
inner garments, saree and blouse from the victim viz., MO1 to MO3, under
the cover of seizure mahazar/Ex.P16. The appellant/accused was arrested on
08.09.2013. PW9/Doctor examined the appellant/accused and issued a
Potency certificate/Ex.P11. PW8/Doctor attached to Government Hospital,
Salem further examined the victim and gave her opinion/Ex.P10. The
medical records/Ex.P6 to Ex.P9 marked in this case and the statements of
witnesses recorded. PW5/Deputy Tahsildar issued community certificate to
the accused which is marked as Ex.P4 confirming he belongs to Most
Backward Class and issued Ex.P5/community certificate to the victim,
confirming she belongs to Scheduled Caste community. On conclusion of
investigation, charge sheet filed. During the trial, PW1 to PW11 examined,
Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 marked and MO1 to MO3 produced on the side of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:52 pm )
prosecution. On the side of defence, no witness examined and no documents
marked. On conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellant
and sentenced him as stated above. Against which, the present appeal filed.
4.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the
appellant a politician, attached to a political party and had political rivalry
with one Chinnasamy, under whom PW1/victim was employed. Due to the
political rivalry, using PW1 the appellant falsely implicated in this case.
Few months before the incident, the appellant met with an accident, he was
unconscious and bedridden which is admitted by the victim. It is also
admitted by the victim that the appellant was owning lands and people
belonging to Scheduled caste community working in his fields and the
appellant had no issues with them. The victim further admits that there was a
village panchayat held in the Church and the appellant denied the incident.
This explanation is given to get over the delay in lodging the complaint.
According to the prosecution, the incident took place during the midnight
and early hours between 05.09.2013 and 06.09.2013, but the complaint was
given only on 07.09.2013. He would submit that PW1 as well as the
Investigating officer admits that the victim was staying in an asbestos roofed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:52 pm )
house and it was a row house, there are others residing in the same row and
no neighbors noticed or complained about the incident. The victim on the
next day went to her daughter-in-law's house at Velliyampalayam and
informed the incident which is highly artificial and defies normal human
conduct. PW7/Doctor examined the victim on 07.09.2013 at about 5:30 p.m.
The Doctor records that on the request of the Inspector of Police, in Crime
No.134 of 2013 the victim was examined to determine whether she was
subjected to rape or not, but in Ex.P1/complaint it is projected as though
PW10/Sub-Inspector of police went to the hospital where he recorded the
statement of the victim/PW1. Had the statement had been recorded in the
Hospital, then it should have been in the presence of PW7/Doctor and the
statement should have been attested by PW7. On the contrary, PW7 states
that at the request of the Police, she examined the victim. Hence, the
foundational fact becomes doubtful and shaky. He further submitted that
PW7 confirms that she noticed a simple injury in the private parts and issued
Ex.P8/Accident Register, further she collected pubic hair and sent it for
forensic examination. In the forensic report/Ex.P7, it is recorded that no
spermatozoa found. He further submitted that PW8/Doctor who examined
the victim given a report/Ex.P10, which is on the back side of Ex.P7 that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:52 pm )
there could have been possibility of sexual assault, which is without medical
reasoning. In Ex.P9/Accident Register, it is recorded abrasion over
fourchette, other than that, there are no other injuries of any sort. PW7
admits that this type of injury is a natural occurrence and thus, ruling out that
there was any forcible penetration. Further, there is doubt in the manner in
which MO1 to MO3 seized. PW1's evidence is that MO1 to MO3 seized
from her house. PW3, son of PW1 who is the witness for the seizure
mahazar/EX.P16 who identified his signature in the seizure mahazar where
it is recorded that the dress articles MO1 to MO3 collected on 08.09.2013 at
about 11.00 a.m. in the Government Hospital, Tiruchengode. Hence, there
are contradictions and serious doubt as to where MO1 to MO3 seized.
Further in the forensic report/Ex.P6, it is seen that no semen detected in
MO1 to MO3. In this case, PW11/Investigating Officer referring to
Observation mahazar/Ex.P14 and rough sketch/Ex.P15 confirms that the
victim was residing in a row house with asbestos sheets. There are totally
five houses in the row and hence any sound or unusual movement made in
one house can be felt and heard by the neighbors. In this case, none of the
neighbors uttered anything about the incident. Ex.P10 is the opinion of
PW8/Doctor, which is on the reverse side of Ex.P7/forensic report and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:52 pm )
victim not examined clinically and hence this report is without any medical
reasoning. From the above, it is clear that the foundational fact becomes
shaky and doubtful. There is some political animosity against the appellant.
The Trial Court found that no rape committed but convicted the appellant for
attempt to rape and trespassing into the house of victim. In this case, PW1
admits that the door was locked from inside and there is no possibility to
open the door from outside. These vital facts not considered by the Trial
Court. Hence, prayed for acquittal.
5.In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant
relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Aman Kumar and
another vs. State of Haryana reported in (2004) 4 SCC 379, wherein it is
held that the version of the victim cannot be accepted on its face value and
the Court may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would
lend assurance to her testimony. He further relied upon the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Krishna alias Krishnappa vs. State of Karnataka
reported in (2014) 15 SCC 596 and the decision of this Court in the case of
Pazhani vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police reported in 2019 SCC
Online Mad 27046.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:52 pm )
6.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) strongly opposed the
contention of the appellant and submitted that in this case, PW1 is aged
about 55 years, who belongs to the Arunthudiyar community, listed under
Schedule Caste. Her husband employed as a Driver in a Water Scheme and
his work was during night hours. Taking advantage of his absence and the
victim's loneliness, the appellant who belongs to Most Backward Class,
forcibly entered the victim's house and committed rape. When she attempted
to raise alarm, her mouth was shut and the appellant threatened her and
abused her by calling her caste name. Due to the shock, the victim could not
immediately react and on the next day, she felt severe pain all over her body.
Unable to bear the pain, she went to her daughter-in-law's house at
Veliyampalayam and informed the incident. Thereafter, PW2/daughter-in-
law, took the victim to the Government Hospital Thiruchengodu and from
hospital, information sent to the respondent police. PW10 visited the
Hospital, recorded the statement of PW1 and took her thumb impression.
Finding that the offence involves SC/ST Act, he placed the FIR before the
Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, PW11/Deputy Superintendent of Police
took up investigation on the authorization of the Superintendent of Police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:52 pm )
visited the scene of occurrence on 08.09.2013, prepared observation
mahazar and rough sketch in presence of witnesses and thereafter recorded
the statements of witness and victim’s daughter-in-law. In the meanwhile,
PW7/Casualty Doctor attached to Government Hospital, Tiruchengodu
conducted physical and clinical examination of the victim, collected pubic
hairs, swabs and sent for forensic examination. Thereafter, the victim was
sent to a Gynecologist at Government Hospital, Salem. PW8/Doctor
attached to Government Hospital, Salem examined her. PW7 and PW8
issued Accident Registers/Ex.P8 and Ex.P9. In both Accident Registers, it is
recorded that 1cm simple bruise injury found in the victim's private part.
PW8/Doctor gave opinion/Ex.P10 confirming the possibility of sexual
assault. The community certificates of the victim and the appellant collected
and thereafter, on conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed. In this
case, all witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. PW1 informed her
daughter-in-law/PW2 and thereafter, the entire case unfolded, clearly
recorded by PW11. On the evidence of the witnesses and medical and other
records, the Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant. Hence prayed for
dismissal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:52 pm )
7.The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant/third
respondent opposed the appellant's contention and submitted that the victim
belongs to Arunthathiyar community listed under Scheduled Caste and she
was staying alone. The accused belonging to Most Backward Class, having a
dominant position over the victim, forcibly entered the victim's house and
committed sexual assault. She was in shock, a state of unable to react
immediately, after gaining strength, suffering unbearable pain, she informed
her daughter-in-law/PW2, who took her to the Hospital and thereafter,
complaint lodged. The victim's medical examination by PW7 and PW8
confirms injuries on the victim's private parts. The Trial Court considering
the evidence and medical records, rightly convicted the appellant. Hence
prayed for dismissal of appeal.
8.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it
is seen that PW1/victim admits that the door was locked from inside and she
was staying in a row house with asbestos sheet covering. It is not in doubt
that any unusual sound or movement at 1:00 a.m. in the middle of the night
would definitely gain attention of the neighbors. But none of the neighbors
stated anything with regard to the occurrence proper. The only witness is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:52 pm )
PW1. The victim/PW1 admits that the house was locked from inside, how it
was unlocked and how the appellant gained entry, there is no evidence. Even
in the observation mahazar, there is no reference to the lock. PW7/Casualty
Doctor at Government Hospital, Tiruchengode, who examined PW1 on
08.09.2013 at about 5:30 p.m. In her evidence, she confirms that PW10/Sub-
Inspector of Police gave a request with crime number to examine PW1 both
physically and clinically and to give opinion whether the victim was
subjected to rape. Till 08.09.2013 she was in the hospital. PW1's evidence is
that MO1 to MO3 seized from her residence. On the contrary,
Ex.P16/seizure mahazar records that MO1 to MO3 collected from
Government Hospital, Tiruchengode on 08.09.2013 at about 11:00 a.m.
further, no spermatozoa detected in MO1 to MO3 as per Ex.P7. Though the
case was initially projected as house trespass and commission of rape, the
Trial Court found that it was only a case of attempt to rape. It is clear in
Ex.P1/complaint that there is no attestation by any Doctor, more particularly,
PW7. Strangely, PW7 gives opinion/Ex.P10 in the reverse of forensic
report/Ex.P7 stating that on clinical examination, the possibility of rape is
there. What is the reasoningl to come to such conclusion, nothing is
available. The specific case of the appellant is that he had political rivalry
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:52 pm )
with Chinasamy and PW1 was employed under him. Further, the appellant
met with an accident, he was unconscious and was under treatment for
almost three months, which confirms that he was not physically fit to have
free movement. The evidence of witness, Doctors and medical reports
confirm the abrasion over fourchette recorded in Ex.P9 can be a natural
phenomena. The recording of Ex.P1/complaint is highly doubtful and there
is several infirmities in the prosecution case. Hence, this Court finds
prosecution miserably failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt.
Hence, giving benefit of doubt to the appellant this Court is inclined to set
aside the conviction and acquit the appellant from the above case.
9.Accordingly, the judgment in S.C.No.66 of 2015 dated 03.11.2020
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act
Cases, Namakkal is set aside and the appellant is discharged from the above
case.
10.In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed.
11.This Court appreciates Ms.Vrindha, Legal Aid Counsel for the third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:52 pm )
respondent for her strenuous efforts in doing research and putting forth the
case of the third respondent effectively. The Legal Services Authority to pay
the remuneration to the Legal Aid Counsel as per Rules.
07.01.2026
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
cse
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:52 pm )
To
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Tiruchengode Sub Division,
Namakkal District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Molasi Police Station,
Namakkal District.
3.The Sessions Judge,
Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases,
Namakkal.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:52 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
Pre-delivery judgment made in
07.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/01/2026 06:02:52 pm )
