DURAI Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There two appeals are taken up together as they relate to the same occurrence.

(2.) These two appeals have been directed by accused 1 and 2 respectively against their conviction and sentence by the learned VII Assistant Sessions Judge. City Civil Court. Madms in SC. No. 166 of 1990 dated 21-4-1992. By the said judgment each of the appellant have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment each for a period of ten years for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The case of the prosecution in short is given below: - The victim girl Dhanalakshmi P.W.1 was working as a servant maid in the house of P.W. 4 Praveen Kumar at the time of the occurrence. On 30-8-1989 which was a Bharat bandh day at 8.00 p.m. P.W.1 came out of the house of P.W.4 with a small vessel to purchase curd. While she was proceeding in the Purasawakkam Road P.W.2 Chockalingam who was residing in that area advised P.W.1 not to go at that hour as it was a bandh day and the road was deserted. While P.W.2 was talking with the victim girl both the appellants namely. Durai and Samuvel came along with one Mani and accosted P.W. 2 as to how he can talk with the girl of their area and assaulted P.W. 2. P.W. 2 got afraid and ran away leaving his cycle. Thereafter the appellants and Mani threatened P.W.1 at the point of knife and dragged her towards Dalith Lane near a primary school. In that lane two lorries were standing and there was a wall by the side of the lorries. In the place between the lorries and the wall the appellants and another at the point of knife pushed down the victim girl and committed rape on her one by one. After the incident the victim girl met P.W. 3 her uncle a rickshaw puller and told what had happened. They took P.W. 1 to the house where she was working and informed about the incident. Then the matter was informed to the mother of the victim girl. Thereafter, P.W. 1 went to the Vepery Police Station at 9.30 p.m. on 30-8-1989 and gave a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W.10 who was present at the Police Station. The statement of P.W.1 was recorded by P.W. 10 and her signatures were obtained which is Ex. P1. Then P.W.10, registered a case in Crime No. 1578 of 1989 under Section 376 I.P.C. and. prepared Express F.I.R. Ex. PlO. He sent Exs. P1 to PlO to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and copies of Ex. PlO to the superior officials. Since the Inspector of Police was on come other duty. P.W. 11 who was working as Sub-Inspector took up the investigation on the instructions of P.W. 10. P.W.11 recovered the clothes worn by P.W. 1 under Form 95 in the presence of P.W. 5 and another, Raju. Thereafter, P.W. 11 proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared the observation Mahazar Ex. P3 in the presence of some witnesses. The clothes recovered from P.W.1 have been marked as M.Os. 3 to 7. The rough sketch was prepared by P.W. 11 at the place of occurrence.

(3.) On 31-8-1989, P.W. 1 was produced before the Doctor P.W.8 to determine her age radiologically and also whether she was subjected to sexual intercourse. After examining P.W. 1 P.W. 8 was of the view that she under went recent sexual intercourse and she had completed 18 years of age and not 20 years of age. Ex. P8 is the certificate issued by the Doctor. At 10.30 a.m. on 31-8-1999, P.W.11 arrested both the appellants at Rangaiyachetty Street Lane in the presence of witnesses and recorded the confession given by them. Both the appellants took P.W.11 and the witnesses to the place of occurrence. The first accused Al produced M.O.l knife from the place where it was concealed. while the second accused A2 produced M.O.2 knife. Both the knives were recovered by P.W.l under separate mahazars Ex. P14 and P15 respectively. The admissible portions of the statement reading to the recovery of the said two-knives have been separately marked as Exs. P12 and P13. Both the appellants were produced before the Doctor P.W.7 and he was of the opinion that both the appellants are fit for sexual intercourse. Exs. P7 and P8 are the certificates issued by the doctor. The clothes recovered from the victim girl were sent to chemical analysis by the Metropolitan Magistrate concerned at the request of the investigation officer P.W.11. The Chemical Examiner found spermatoza present. Ex. P17 is the report of the Chemical Examiner. P.W.1 correctly identified both the appellants in the test-Identification parade conducted on the requisition of the investigation officer before the Judicial Magistrate P.W.9 and Ex.9 is the report. After completing the investigation. Inspector of Police - Selvaraj laid the charge-sheet about which P.W.11 had deposed in the Court.