M. DHARMA AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants in these three appeals are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C. No. 445 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli. There were as many as 4 charges framed by the trial Court. The first charge was against the accused 2 and 3 under Section 366(A) IPC. The 2nd charge was under Section 376 IPC against the first accused. The third charge was under Section 506(ii) IPC against the first accused and the fourth charge was under Section 376 read with Section 109 IPC against the accused 2 and 3. The trial Court by judgment, dated 16.09.2013, convicted the accused 2 and 3 under Section 366(A) IPC, convicted the first accused under Section 376 IPC and convicted the accused 2 and 3 under Sections 376 read with 109 IPC. The first accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 506(ii) IPC. For the offence under Section 376 IPC, the trial Court sentenced the first accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ -, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, sentenced the accused 2 and 3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ -, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 366(A) IPC, sentenced the accused 2 and 3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ -, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 376 read with 109 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with these appeals.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

(3.) THE learned Senior counsel appearing for the accused would submit that the evidence of P.W.1 is highly unnatural and therefore, the same is unbelievable. The learned Senior counsel would point out that even according to the evidence of P.W.1, she was very passive at the time of occurrence and she did not make any resistance. This, according to the learned counsel, would go to show that she was a consenting party. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that the medical evidence does not corroborate the eye witness account of P.W.1 and thus, the very factum of sexual intercourse has not been proved. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that P.W.1 was legally competent to give consent, as she had completed 16 years of age as on the date of occurrence. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal.