Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

R.RAVI versus STATECR.NO.6 OF 2001

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


R.Ravi v. StateCr.No.6 of 2001 - Crl.A.577 of 2005 [2007] RD-TN 2404 (19 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATE : 19.07.2007

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN Crl.A.No.577 of 2005

R.Ravi .. Appellant Vs.

State rep by

The Inspector of Police,

Guddalore, Nilgiris District,

Cr.No.6 of 2001. .. Respondent Prayer:- This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 19.11.2004 made in S.C.No.30 of 2004 on the file of the Nilgiris District and Sessions Court at Udhagamandalam. For Appellant :Mr.S.Doraisamy For Respondent :Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian Additional Public Prosecutor JUDGMENT



This appeal has been preferred against the judgment in S.C.No.30 of 2004 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam.

2.According to the prosecution, the accused had committed the offence of rape on 16.12.2000 at about 10.00 am on P.W.2 and he has also been charged under Section 417 IPC for having deceived the victim girl on the pretext of marrying her, committed the offence of rape.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, had taken the case on file and on appearance of the accused, had furnished copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Since the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The learned Session Judge on appearance of the accused had framed charges under Section 376 & 417 IPC and when questioned the accused, pleaded not guilty. Before the trial Court P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined and Ex.P.1 & Ex.P.19 were marked.

4.P.W.1 is the uncle of the victim girl P.W.2, to whom P.W.2 had revealed that the accused had sexual intercourse with her, which resulted in enormous pain in her stomach. P.W.1 immediately took her to a doctor, who after examined her, had informed that P.W.2 is in the family way. When he (P.W.1) further probed into the matter, P.W.2 had further revealed that only under the pretext of marrying her the accused had sexual intercourse with her and that there was a panchayat convened twice but the accused did not turn up, which necessitated P.W.1 to prefer the complaint-Ex.P.1 against the accused.

5.P.W.2 is the victim girl, who has narrated what she has stated in the complaint-Ex.P.1. According to her, only under the pretext of marrying her the accused had sexual intercourse with her on 16.12.2000 and that she became pregnant and her uncle P.W.1 took her to the hospital for treatment and that she delivered a child on 19.2.2000. Ex.P.2 is the birth certificate for the child.

6.P.W.3 is the doctor, who had examined the accused and issued Ex.P.4-certificate certifying that he is potent.

7.P.w.4 is the Radiologist, who had examined the victim girl and issued Ex.P.6 age certificate stating the age of the victim girl is above 18 but below 20.

8.P.W.5 is the Inspector of Police, who had registered Ex.P.1-complaint under Cuddalore Police Station Cr.No. 6 of 2001 under Section 376 IPC. Ex.P.7 is the FIR. He had examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He had given Ex.P.8-letter of requisition for subjecting the victim girl for medical examination and also issued Ex.P.9-letter of requisition for subjecting the accused for medical examination. Ex.P.15 is the chemical analyst's report. Ex.P.16 is the Serologist's report.

9.P.W.6 is the successor of P.W.5, who had filed final report on 25.3.2003 against the accused.

10.When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused would deny his complicity with the crime. The learned trial judge after meticulously going through the evidence both oral and documentary has come to the conclusion that the charges under Section 417 & 376 IPC have been proved against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the accused under Section 417 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year RI and slapped a fine of Rs.1000- with default sentence and also convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC and sentenced the accused to undergo 7 years RI and a fine of Rs.5000/- with default sentence. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial judge, the accused has preferred this appeal?

11.Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial judge in S.C.No.30 of 2004 on the file of the District & Sessions Judge, Nilgiris, can be sustainable for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal?

12.When the appeal was taken up for hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that after P.W.2 has given her evidence before the trial Court the accused had married her and they are living as husband and wife. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has produced a receipt dated 19.10.2004 showing that the marriage between the accused and P.W.2 was solemnized in Sri Sakthi Vinayagar Temple, Cheranpatti on 20.10.2004. Further the accused has also sworn to an affidavit before this Court admitting his guilt and that during trial he had married the victim girl (P.W.2) and that they are living as husband and wife and that they have also been blessed with a male child and that after release from the jail he will continue to live with P.W.1 and child. This affidavit has been sworn to by the accused during his incarceration on 15.3.2006. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on this point, who has no serious objection for modifying the sentence to that of the period already undergone instead of 7 years in lieu of the change of circumstances. It is further represented that the accused was in jail for one year and seven months. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the sentence alone is to be modified in the above lines.

13.In fine, the appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction of the accused under Section 417 & 376 IPC passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam, in S.C.No.30 of 2004 but the sentence alone is modified to that of the period already undergone in lieu of the change of circumstances narrated as above. The fine will sustain. ssv

To,

1.The District & Sessions Judge,

Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam.

2.The Judicial Magistrate,

Guddalore.

3.-do-The Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court,

Madras.

5.The Inspector of Police,

All Women Police Station,

Guddalore, Nilgiris District.

(Cr.No.6 of 2001)

6.The Superintendent,

Central Prison, Coimbatore.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.