PRABHU Vs. STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant as against the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai in S.C.No.280 of 2012 dated 16.04.2015.

(2.) The case of the prosecution according to the complaint dated 21.10.2010 is that on 14.06.2010 at about 11.00 a.m., when the Defacto-Complainant/PW1 was in her office, she was subjected under sexual intercourse by the appellant after administered her some sedative pills by mixing it in tea. Soon after the consumption of the tea given by the appellant, PW1 was got fainted and thereby the offence was committed by the appellant. Since PW1 was not in complete conscious, she was unable to resist but objected the same. However, according to the complaint PW1 stated that after getting full conscious, she got angry and assaulted the appellant, but the appellant was lamented and requested PW1 that he would marry her and he would not allow Pw-1 to marry anyone else. Further he also informed PW1 that he committed the offence only with an intention to get marry the PW1. However, though PW1 tried to commit suicide as her modesty was outraged, the same was prevented by the appellant.

(3.) The further case of the PW1 is that thereafter she returned back to her house and did not inform the same to her parents. Subsequently, on the request of the appellant, PW1 came to the office and one Ganesan, relative of the appellant, was also in the office and instructed PW1 that the parents of the appellant would not accept the marriage proposal of PW1 with the appellant and therefore, he advised PW1 to get marry the appellant. At the same time, Pw-1 that the appellant committed the offence even after knowing the fact that PW1 had love affairs with one Vinoth and the appellant prevented the marriage. In the meanwhile, as the PW-1 did not feel her usual monthly menstrual cycle, but felt nausea she subjected herself to a lab test and ascertained that she was pregnant. So, she took treatment with PW-7 and continued the medical treatment by taking medicines. It was her routine habit to take pills in the office and took the night medicines in a paper to her residence. Moreover, in an occasion, when PW-1was taking medicines, the appellant insisted PW-1 that she has to take the medicines compulsorily as the appellant is the father of the child in the womb of PW-1. However, after two days she suffered with excessive bleeding. So, she again went to the hospital of PW-7, in turn PW-7 referred PW-1 to the hospital of PW-8 for the excessive bleeding, in the hospital of PW-8, where it was diagnosed that PW-1 suffered with abortion. When the abortion was informed by the PW-1 to the appellant, he informed PW1 that he only changed the medicines and caused abortion. However, all the medical records kept in a bureau were taken by the appellant without the knowledge of PW1. Since the activities of the appellant were adverse to Pw-1, she went to the residence of the appellant, but she was informed by one Ganesan and the appellant to come on the next day. When PW1 went to the residence of the appellant along with the PW-10, the parents of the appellant assaulted PW-1. Hence, she lodged a police complaint but the same was not taken on file. In the meanwhile enquiry was subsequently conducted by the police and thereafter PW1 along with her mother went to the residence of an advocate where the appellant and PW-1 negotiated. In the meanwhile when the appellant was searched by police, he was not found, therefore on 21.10.2010 complaint was lodged by PW-1, the same was received by PW-5 and the case in Crime No.1828 of 2010 was registered.