AMIRTHALINGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Arcot , in C. A. No. 57 of 1990 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vridhachalam, in s. C. No. 162 of 1988 for the offence under Sec. 376, Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is as follows: P. W. 1 who is deserted by her husband, lives alone in Neyveli. Her livelihood is by collecting the waste papers and also the scrap irons. She used to pick the scrap iron within the Neyveli Lignite Corporation premises. Even though security is provided in the Corporation mine area, P. W. 1 and some others stealthily used to pick up the scrap irons lying therein for their livelihood. On 2. 6. 1987 at about'1. 00'clock, she along with P. W. 2 and some others, entered into the Corporation area and tried to pick up the scrap irons in the area known as'b'point. THE accused/ revision petitioner, who was working as Havildar guarding the area, saw these women and called P. W. 1 alone to follow him. Though P. W. 1 was reluctant and was hesitating to obey his direction, due to the persuasion of the other women, she followed him and after reaching some distance this revision petitioner caught hold of her hands and dragged close to him. When she protested, he scolded her saying that she was pretending to be a woman of virtues and pushed her down close to the shrubs grown therein. THEn he undressed himself and raped her. Even though P. W. 1 shouted for help, no one came there. THEre was bleeding from her private parts. She returned back weaping to the place where her campanions were waiting for her and told them the incident. Two persons who came there, enquired them and took them to'b'point security office where P. W. 1 narrated the incident to P. W. 5, the Security Superintendent who recorded her statement under ex. D-1. He also called all the security staff and asked P. W. 1 to identify the culprit. She identified this revision petitioner as the culprit. By about 9. 00 clock, she along with her companions, was brought in a jeep to Neyveli bus stand, where they were dropped and she was given Rs. 105 whereas others were paid each Rs. 25 with a direction that they should not reveal this to anyone as their livelihood itself was by picking up scrap irons within the Corporation area. Some days later, an anonymous letter Ex. P-4 was sent to the Chief vigilance Officer stating that this revision petitioner, even if he had committed any offence, should have been dealt with according to law, but he was beaten on 2. 6. 1987 and that Rs. 2,000 was extracted from him as though it was paid as compensation to the victim woman but actually it was not paid to her and this amount was utilised by the higher officers and their links on drinks. On the basis of this letter, the Chief Security Officer took steps to trace P. W. 1 and obtained a statement Ex. P-1 from her on 25. 6. 1987. THE same was forwarded to the Inspector of Police for necessary action and on the basis of Ex. P-1, P. W. 16 sub Inspector of Police took up the investigation and P. W. 17 Inspector of police charge-sheeted the accused/revision petitioner.

(3.) THE evidence discloses that the revision petitioner on seeing these four women directed only P. W. 1 to follow him. THE learned government Advocate pointed out that P. W. 1 was a young woman of 21 years old while others were aged and therefore the revision petitioner's eyes fell on her for his carnal urge, that when she was asked to follow him the other women might have thought that for purpose of warning or to threaten her for collecting the scrap irons, she was asked to follow him and therefore they also asked P. W. 1 to obey his direction. Soon after the alleged occurrence P. Ws. 2 and 3 would state that P. W. 1 came to them weeping and two persons who came there, took them to the B point security office. P. W. 5 the Security Superintendent, has stated in his evidence that P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3, and another woman, whose name he did not know, came to him by about 03. 00 p. m. on 2. 6. 1987. From the evidence of P. W. 5, it is clear that P. Ws. 2 and 3 and another woman, were with P. W. 1 when they were in B point. P. W. 8, the Security Officer, also would state in his evidence that P. Ws. 1 to 3 and another woman by name Panki were present in the b point area. THE evidence of P. Ws. 5 and 8 cannot be brushed aside and their evidence makes it clear that P. Ws. 2 and 3 also should have been present with p. W. 1, as all of them came together for picking the scrap irons scattered on the earth.