RAGOTHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petitioner stood trial for offence under Section 376 IPC, while he and four others stood trial for offences under Sections 417 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in S.C.No.107 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Villupuram.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that at about 9.00 p.m., on 01.02.2004, the 1st accused had accosted PW1 Manimegalai, when she was alone in her house, took her to the back of the house, promised that he would not marry anyone other than her and against her will forced her into sexual intercourse. THEreafter, the act was repeated upon false inducement of a promise to marry. PW1 became pregnant and on 01.06.2004 all the accused asked her to undergo an abortion informing her that they would arrange the marriage. THEreafter, the 1st accused refused to marry her and all the accused demanded dowry as a pre condition of marriage.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the very evidence of PW1 is at variance as regards the time of commission of offence. In chief examination, she had deposed that the same had taken place at 8.00pm whereas, in cross examination she had informed the time as 2.00p.m. PW1 had denied the suggestion that in the complaint preferred by her Ex.P1, she had informed the time of occurrence as 8.00 p.m. P.W.13, the Sub Inspector of Police had deposed that PW1 had not informed in the complaint of the occurrence having taken place at 2.00pm or her having raised an alarm at such time or for that matter of the accused having prevented her for raising an alarm by closing her mouth.