KAMARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Arcot at Vellore made in C. A. No. 146 of 1988, dated 19. 12. 1989 confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 376, I. P. C. (one count) and accordingly, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs. 500 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, awarded by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Vellore, made in S. C. No. 125 of 1987. 2 Brief facts of the prosecution case are stated as follows: P. Ws. 2, 3,4 and 5 are the grown-up girls living along with their parents at Seththuvandai Village in North Arcot District, within the jurisdiction of Gudiyatham Taluk Police Station. Petitioner also belongs to the same place. While that being so, on 20. 6. 1986, the petitioner on making a misrepresentation to the above said witnesses that he was taking a cinema film at Madras and that he would arrange for them to get a chance to act in the film if they desired, prevailed over them. He brought them to Madras in a transport bus but reached Erucckancheri, hired a rental house, provided the witnesses with meals and made them to stay therein. The next day morning, petitioner took them to the houses of persons connected with the cinema field and brought them back to the rented house. They all had their meals and went to bed. It was the further case of the prosecution that on the night of the said day, P. W. 2 was forcibly raped by the revision petitioner and that on the following day, P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 were also subjected to the same kind of offence by the petitioner. But however, the fourth girl had escaped. After three days, these four girls P. Ws. 2 to 5, were sent to Gudiyatham by bus. On the fourth day, on reaching their village, the girls have informed their relatives as to what had happened to them. P. W. 1, father of P. W. 2,. reported the matter to gudiyatham Taluk Police Station at about 2 p. m. on 23. 6. 1986. His complaint was registered as Gudiyatham Taluk Police Station crime Number 130 of 1986 against the petitioner and investigation started. P. W. 17, prepared the express reports and printed F. I. R. and sent them to Court and superior officers. He sent P. W. 2 to P. W. 5 for medical examination. P. W. 15, dr. Prakasam, attached to the Government Hospital , Gudiyatham referred P. W. 2 to P. W. 5 to be examined by a lady doctor. P. W. 2 to P. W. 5 were examined by a lady doctor by name Ruthrabai,but however, she was neither cited as a witness nor examined before the trial court. What is the strange thing to be noticed is that the lady doctor who examined the victim girls had not even given any certificate with regard to her examination of the above victim girls.

(2.) P. W. 17 took up investigation and went to the scene of occurrence and examined the witnesses there. On 24. 6. 1986 at Marina Beach near kan-nagi Statue, he arrested the petitioner. On the information furnished by the petitioner, he visited the house where the victim girls had stayed and prepared rough sketch Ex. P-13. He recovered M. Os. l to 15 under mahazar Ex. P-4. He also recovered the clothes of the petitioner M. Os. 19 to 22, under Form 91 ex. P-14. He also recovered the petty coats of the victim girls. Ex. P-15 is the express report sent by him to court. P. W. 18 took up further investigation since p. W. 17 was transferred. P. W. 18 examined further witnesses, completed the investigation and laid final report against the petitioner for the offences under Secs. 366 and 376, I. P. C. P. W. 16, Dr. Nagarajan attached to the Government hospital, Gudiyatham, has examined the petitioner on 25. 6. 1986 and has given the certificate about the potency of the petitioner and preserved the semen from him for chemical analysis. Ex. P-12 is the certificate issued by him.

(3.) A mere glance of the oral testimony of the investigation staff, P. Ws. 2 to 5 and P. W. 1, the author of Ex. P-1 reveals that they did not project a single word of explanation for the delay that had occasioned setting the law in motion by giving Ex. P-1. I am fully conscious of the fact that in a case of rape and especially under the circumstances the victim girls were threatened by the real offender and for the communication gap to their respective parents it is quite nature for a delay being happened. But however, that does not mean that the case of the prosecution without the said delay being explained, has to be accepted. This aspect of the accepted principle of law has not been made available in this case. Therefore, having perused the case records and the oral testimony, I am fully satisfied to hold that the inordinate delay of four days in setting the law in motion, in the instant case, cuts the very root of the prosecution case and as such, it has to be thrown to the debris.