RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners are accused 1 to 4 in S. C. 231 of 1988 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, South Arcot Division, Villupuram. They along with three more accused (A5 to A7) were tried in that Sessions Case for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. All of them, on being found guilty, were sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment. All the convicted accused filed an appeal bearing No. C. A. 84 of 1989 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, South Arcot Vallalar Division, Cuddalore, who, by judgment dated 31-7-1990 acquitted ail the accused. That judgment was challenged before this Court in Cr1. R. C. 489 of 1990 by the victim herself and a learned Judge of this Court on 21-3-1997 set aside the judgment of acquittal referred to above and remitted the appeal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The appeal once again went before the Principal Sessions Judge, South Arcot Vallalar Division, Cuddalore, who, by judgment dated 20-11-1997 found the accused 5 to 7 not guilty of the offence of rape, but found Accused 1 to 4 guilty of the said offence and confirmed the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment imposed on them by the learned Trial Judge It is the correctness of that judgment that is being questioned in this revision by the convicted accused 1 to 4. Heard Mr. Shanmuga Velayutham, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate on the criminal side appearing for the respondent.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the materials available on record had not established the case of the prosecution at all as far as the offence of rape is concerned and therefore the conviction rendered by the learned trial Magistrate and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court is bad in law. The learned counsel would also submit that though the delay in giving the complaint in an offence of this type by itself will not be vital in every case, yet if other facts are established, which raises a suspicion regarding the case of the prosecution, then the delay in lodging the information shall definitely assume some importance. The circumstances that are relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners are the medical evidence totally rules out the possibility of any act of rape having been committed on the victim the accused are not well placed in relationship with one Panneer, and Panchayat Board President it is the dominant role of Panneer with whom the prosecution itself had admitted that the victim had an affair and the Panchayat Board President is directly responsible for the lodging of information in this case almost five or six days after the occurrence. Therefore in the presence of serious strained relationship between the accused on the one hand and the prosecution party on the other hand, since according to the prosecution, the accused did not like the victim girl carrying on all affair with the said Panneer, the delay in lodging the information must be taken as heavily loaded in favour of the accused. Viewing the first information lodged in this case in the background of the above facts, it appears that the information could not have been given by P. W. 1 herself but it appears to be a creation of either Panneer all alone by himself or in a joint effort with the Panchayat Board President. P. W. is none else than the mother of the victim P. W.1. The prosecution case is that P. W. came into contact with P. W. within a reasonable time after the act of rape committed on her. If really P. W. had been raped as put forward by the prosecution, then she would not have failed to mention that aspect to her mother, namely, P. W. 3, but P. W. 3s evidence is totally silent on this aspect and she nowhere states that P. W. 1 told her about the accused did the act of rape on her. This is yet another circumstance, according to Mr. S. Sbanmuga Velayutham, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, which shall be taken into account to doubt the very prosecution case itself. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners concluded by summing up his arguments stating that all the facts brought to the notice of this Court as noted above have not entered into the mind of the Courts below and therefore the judgment of conviction as affirmed by the Appellate Court is without application of mind to the facts noticed above, which are relevant and material facts and that would definitely vitiate the judgments.

(3.) THE evidence of P. W. 4 shows that P. Ws. 1 and 3 informed him as to what happened in that previous night. All of them went to the Panchayat Board President. Being the village people, approaching the Panchayat Board people and telling them about a problem of this nature cannot be said to be unnatural or unbelievable. It is on the direction of Panchayat Board President, the evidence shows, that a complaint has come to be lodged and the law was set on motion. The medical evidence available in this case shows about the potency of the accused as well as the symptoms found on the victim girl. P. W. 7 is the doctor who examined the accused and P. W. 8is the doctor who examined the victim girl. It is true that P. W. 8 in her evidence would state that she could not find any trace of spermatozoa in the private parts of the victim girl, but it should be remembered that the medical examination was held five or six days later to the commission of the crime and even on the night of the occurrence itself, the victim girl was dipped in water. Therefore there is every possibility for the spermatozoa being washed away on account of the victim girl being submerged in water for quite sometime. The submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the doctors evidence does not show any offence of rape at all assumes little importance, since the girl admittedly is not a first timer in this line. The medical evidence of P. W. 8 shows that the girl appears to have been used to intercourse even on earlier occasions. The fact that the girl had sexual intercourse earlier and that she was not the first timer on the day of occurrence would not by itself give any right for the accused to commit rape. Whatever may be the loose character of a woman, yet that cannot act as a lever for any person to commit the act of rape, taking shelter of such character of the woman and try to escape from the offence itself. The circumstances available in the case in the form of evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 clinchingly establish the prosecution case. It is no doubt true that as far as the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, we have only the evidence of P. W.1. There is no reason at all available for the Court to disbelieve her evidence regarding the commission of the offence attributed to the accused. The Courts below, while appreciating the entire evidence, found that the prosecution has established the case beyond all reasonable doubts and arrived at a conclusion of the guilt of the accused. No illegality either in the approach of Courts below or in appreciating the evidence of the witnesses had been brought to the notice of the Court. Accordingly I find no merits in the revision and it, is dismissed. Consequently Cr1. M. P. No. 5394 of 1998 is dismissed. Revision dismissed.