P ANBU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By judgment dated 09.06.2014, passed in S.C.No.172 of 2013, the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai, convicted the appellant/accused under Section 366(A) IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment, under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and under Section 495 IPC sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the appellant/accused are ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the same, the criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

(2.) The final report has been laid against the appellant/accused by the respondent police alleging that on 09.04.2009 at 10.30 a.m. the accused had kidnapped the victim, the daughter of the complainant Balakrishnan from his custody by enticing his daughter and tied thaali to the victim at Chinnamalai Church and resided with the victim at No.14, Guindy Labour Colony and M.G.R.Nagar, Pazhavandhangal by renting a house and thereby against her Will and consent committed rape on her and the accused has suppressed his earlier marriage and children to the victim and by enticing and luring her, contracted second marriage with the victim and thus, it is put forth that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 366(A) IPC, 376 and 495 IPC.

(3.) The criminal law in the matter has been set in motion based on the complaint lodged by the victim's father Balakrishnan examined as PW1 and the complaint given by him has been marked as Ex.P1. On a reading of Ex.P1 which is said to have been lodged by the complainant on 10.04.2009, it is found that it only recites that the victim aged 16 years left the house for taking photo and did not return home and therefore, requested the police to trace her. That apart, nothing has been recited in the complaint incriminating the accused alleging that it is only the accused who had kidnapped the victim girl from the complainant's custody. Based on Ex.P1 complaint, it is found that the case has been registered under the section girl missing on 10.04.2009 at 9 p.m. and the registered FIR has been marked as Ex.P8. The complaint and the registered FIR are found to have been dispatched to the Court on 21.04.2009. It is found that PW9 Aruljothimurugan is the Sub Inspector of Police who had registered the FIR Ex.P8 and he would state that based on the complaint lodged by PW1, he had prepared the printed FIR and during the course of cross examination, he has clearly admitted that the complaint lodged on 10.04.2009 had been received by the Court only on 21.04.2009 and for the delayed dispatch of the complaint to the Court there is no reason. However, as rightly argued by the accused counsel, obviously, there is enormous delay in the dispatch of the complaint to the jurisdictional Court and as rightly put forth by him, no plausible explanation is forthcoming on the side of the prosecution as to why the same had been belatedly sent to the jurisdictional Court. Therefore, a serious doubt arises as to the credibility of the prosecution case, particularly, based on the delayed dispatch of the FIR to the competent Court.