Você está na página 1de 15

THEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATMADRAS

DATED:05.08.2011
CORAM:
THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICES.NAGAMUTHU

CriminalAppealNo.277of2005
1.Unnikrishnan@Unni
2.Alice

Vs

TheStatebyInspectorofPolice,
AllWomenPoliceStation,
Coimbatore.

..Appellants

..Respondent

Prayer:CriminalAppealfiledunderSection374Cr.P.C.,againstthejudgmentofthe
learnedSessionsJudge,MagalirNeethimandram,CoimbatoreinS.C.No.18of2004dated
23.03.2005,convictedthe1stappellantforoffencesunderSection366,376and506ofIPC
andsentencedhimtoundergoR.I.for10yearsandtopayafineofRs.10,000/indefault
toundergoS.I.for1yearfortheoffenceunderSection366ofIPC;toundergoR.I.for10
yearsandtopayafineofRs.25,000/indefaulttoundergoS.I.for1yearfortheoffence
underSection376ofIPC;toundergoR.I.for2yearsfortheoffenceunderSection506of
IPCandconvictingthe2ndappellantfortheoffenceunderSection376r/w109ofIPCand
sentencedhertoundergoR.I.for10yearsandtopayafineofRs.25,000/indefaultto
undergoS.I.for1year.

ForAppellants :Mr.Su.Srinivasan

ForRespondent :Mr.I.Subramaniam,

PublicProsecutor,assistedby

Mr.A.N.Thambidurai,A.P.P.

JUDGMENT

Oneofthevirtuesofamanisnottocovetanother'swife.SaintThiruvalluvar
wrotetwothousandyearsagoin145thcoupletof'Thirukkural'asfollows:
"vspJvd,y;ypwg;ghd;va;Jk;v";"hd;Wk;
tpspahJepw;Fk;gHp/"
Thatis:
"Meretriflel'sayingthus,invadesthehome,soheensures.Againofguiltthatdeathless
ayeendures."
Whichmeans:
"Hewhothinkslightlyofgoingintothewifeofanotheracquiresguiltthatwillabidewith
himimperishablyandforever."
Thecaseonhandisofaman(A1)who,withthehelpofawoman(A2)allegedlyattemptedto
covetanother'swifetherebyacquiringguiltwhich,assaidbySaintThiruvalluvar,is
imperishableforever.

2.TheappellantsareaccusedNos.oneandtworespectivelyinS.C.No.18of2004on
thefileofthelearnedSessionsJudge[MahalirNeedhimandram],Coimbatore.Thetrialcourt
byjudgementdated23.03.2005convictedthe1stappellant/A1foroffencesunderSection
366,376and506ofIPCandsentencedhimtoundergoR.I.for10yearsandtopayafineof

Rs.10,000/indefaulttoundergoS.I.for1yearfortheoffenceunderSection366ofIPC;
toundergoR.I.for10yearsandtopayafineofRs.25,000/indefaulttoundergoS.I.for
1yearfortheoffenceunderSection376ofIPC;andtoundergoR.I.for2yearsforthe
offenceunderSection506ofIPC.The2ndappellant/A2hasbeenconvictedfortheoffence
underSection376r/w109ofIPCandsentencedtoundergoR.I.for10yearsandtopaya
fineofRs.25,000/indefaulttoundergoS.I.for1year.Shehasbeenacquittedofthe
chargeunderSection506ofIPC.Outoftheabovefineamount,asumofRs.25,000/hasbeen
orderedtobepaidascompensationtothevictim[P.W.1].Challengingthesaidconviction
andsentence,A1andA2arenowbeforethiscourtwiththiscriminalappeal.

3.ThecaseoftheprosecutionasspokentobyP.W.1isasfollows:P.W.1[the
victim]isthewifeofP.W.2.Atthetimeofoccurrenceshewas31yearsold.Themarriage
betweenP.W.1andP.W.2wascelebratedintheyear1987.Theyhavegottwochildren.P.W.3
isthemotherofP.W.1.P.Ws.1and2wereresidingatManankulambuvillageinKeralaState.
P.W.3wasresidingatCoimabtore.A1isatenantofaportionofthehousebelongingto
P.W.3.A1wasrunningatelevisionshopinthesaidrentedpremises.Inordertocelebrate
themarriageofthebrotherofP.W.1arrangementswereunderway.Forthesaidpurpose,P.W.2
hadcometoCoimbatoreandstayedalongwithP.W.3atherhouse.Duringherstay,P.W.1used
tovisitSaiBabatempleatCoimbatorefrequentlyfordarshan.

4.On26.11.2002,inthemorning,P.W.1waswaitingatFlowerMarketBusStandfor
bustogotoSaiBabatemple.Atthattime,A1cameinacar,stoppedthesameonseeing
P.W.1.Blowingthehornofthecar,hecalledP.W.1tocomenearthecar.P.W.1wentnear
thecar.P.W.1enquiredherastowhyshewaswaiting.P.W.1toldhimthatshewaswaiting
forbustogotoSaiBabatemple.A1toldP.W.1thathewasalsogoingthroughtheway
leadingtoSaiBabaTempleandheofferedtotakeherinhiscarandtodropherinthe
temple.P.W.1declinedtheoffer.But,A1persuadedhertogetintothecar.Since,A1was
repeatedlyinsisting,P.W.1concededtotherequestofA1andfellintothetrap.P.W.1
gotintothecar.TherewasnoneelseinthecarexceptA1.Aftersomedistance,A1turned
thecarinadifferentroutewithoutproceedingtoSaiBabatemple.P.W.1questionedthe
same.A1toldherthathehadtogotohissister'shousewhichwasverynearertothesaid
place.Hefurthertoldthatinatwominutestime,theycouldreturnafterhandingoveran
importantpapertohissister.P.W.1believedthesaidwords.Thecarfurtherproceeded.A1
stoppedthecarinfrontofahouse[thesaidhousewaslateronidentifiedasA2'shouse].
A1gotdownfromthecarandwentintothehouse.P.W.1waswaitinginthecar.Afterfew
minutes,awoman(lateridentifiedasA2)cameoutofthehouseandrushedtowardsthecar.
ShetoldP.W.1thatA1hadinformedherthatP.W.1whoisthedaughterofhislandladywas
waitinginthecar.A2requestedP.W.1tocomeintoherhouse.P.W.1toldherthat
alreadyshewaslatetogotothetemple.A2persuadedhertocomeintothehouse.
Accordingly,P.W.1gotdownfromthecarandwentintothehouseofA2.

5.A2madehertositinthefrontroomofthehouse.SheofferedP.W.1something
toeat.P.W.1declinedtotakeanything.Insteadshewantedonlydrinkingwater.But,A2
offeredtogivejuicetoP.W.1.A2thereafter,wentintothekitchenandreturnedwitha
glasstumblercontainingjuice.P.W.2drankthesame.A2satbythesideofP.W.1andasked
hername.P.W.1toldhername.Atthattime,A1cameoutofadifferentroomandasked
P.W.1totakejuiceandassuredthathewouldreturnsoonafterwashinghisface.Heagain
wentintothesaidroom.P.W.1enquiredaboutthenameofA2andcametoknowofthesame.
A2toldherthatshewasworkinginaprivatehospital.WhenP.W.1andA2wereengagedin
conversation,P.W.1feltgiddiness.A2slightlytapedonP.W.1'srightcheek.Thereafter,
shewantedP.W.1toopenhermouthandputsomeliquidintohermouth.P.W.1thenbecame
sedated.Atthattime,A1isallegedtohaverapedher.A2administeredaninjectionwhich
madeherfullyunconscious.

6.Byabout5.00or5.30p.m.whensheregainedconsciousness,shefoundherself
lyingonthecotinanudeposition.A2wasalsofoundnudeandlyingbyherside.P.W.1
enquiredA1andA2astowhereherdresswas.A1toldhertotakeherdresskeptbehindthe
bed.Atthattime,P.W.1furthernoticedthatherearstuds,banglesandthalichainwere
missing.Shealsonoticedanyellowthreadtiedaroundherneck.P.W.1askedA1andA2as
towhotiedthesamearoundherneck.A1saidthatheonlytiedsymbolisingmarriage

betweenhimandP.W.1.P.W.1questionedA1astowhytheyhadspoiledherlifetothat
extent.Shefurthertoldthatshewouldtellherparentsaboutthesame.A1toldherthat
intheeventshetoldherparents,hewouldexposehernudephotographswhichhehadtaken
whileshewasunconscious.Thereafter,P.W.1wenttotheurinalandpassedurine.There
sheexperiencedpainonherthighs.Shealsonoticedhervaginawithabnormalbulging.She
washedhervagina.Atthattime,shenoticedsomevolatilesubstanceonhervaginalpart.
ShereturnedfromurinalandquarrelledwithA1andA2.Sheimmediatelywantedtogotoher
house.A2wentoutsideandbroughtanautorickshaw.P.W.1returnedtohermother'shomein
thesaidauto.

7.P.W.1didnotdiscloseaboutthesaidoccurrencetohermotherortoanybodyelse
atthattime,becauseherfatherwasthenunwellseriouslyandthemarriagearrangements
forhisbrotherwereinprogress.Shebelievedthatiftheaboveinstancecametolight,the
samewouldbefataltohisfatherandalsodetrimentaltothemarriageproposalofhis
brother.Whileathome,onthesameday,shevomited.Onthenextdayalso,shevomited
someblacksubstance.Shealsosufferedfromdiarrhoea.ShewenttoDr.Manoharan(P.W.39)
fortreatment.

8.Afterthreedaysoftheaboveincident,A1spoketoP.W.1overphoneandenquired
whethershehadnotbelievedthathehadtakennudephotographsofP.W.1.Hefurthertold
thatshecouldcometothehouseofA2andseethephotographswhichhehadhandedoverto
A2.Accordingly,P.W.1wenttothehouseofA2whereA2gaveaclosedcovercontaining
photographs.AtthattimeA1alsoreturnedtothehouseofA2.Hehimselfopenedthecover
andtookout6photographs.Outofthesaidphotographs,in4photographsshewasfound
lyingnudebyfacingupwardsandinother2photographs,shewasfoundbeinghuggedbyA1.
P.W.1weptoutofshameanddepression.WhenP.W.1questionedA1astowhyhewastorturing
hertothatextent,A1toldherthatthepurposeofaskinghertocometothehouseofA2
itselfwastotakeherto"BlackThunder"[apicnicspot]toenjoy.P.W.1refusedto
accompanyhim.Then,shereturnedtothehouseofP.W.1.Thereafter,A1usedtospeakto
P.W.1frequentlyoverphonecallinghertoaccompanyhimelsewhere.But,A2assuredP.W.1
togetthephotographsfromA1andhandoverthesame,forthatshewantedRs.10,000/as
consideration.P.W.1toldA2thatA2couldcallherassoonasshegotthephotographsfrom
A1.P.W.1alsoassuredtogivethedemandedamountandreceivethephotographs.Onseveral
occasions,P.W.1requestedA1overphonetoreturnthephotographs.But,A1insistedherto
marryhim.A1didnotreturnthephotographsatall.Hereffortstogetthephotographs
amicablybymediationbyP.W.22andothersalsofailed.Onfewoccasions,A1intimidated
P.W.1thathewouldexposeherbypublishingthephotographs.

9.Afterthemarriageofherbrotherwasover,shereturnedtoKerala.Whileshe
wasatherhomeinKerala,onseveraloccasions,A1spoketoheroverphoneandintimidated.
Onhearingthephonebellringing,ifherhusband[P.W.2]happenedtorespond,A1would
disconnectthecall.Sincesuchthinghappenedfrequently,P.W.2developedsomefoulplay.
On30thApril2002,whenP.W.2enquiredP.W.1astowhyshewasverytiredanddepressed
fromthedayofreturntoKerala,P.W.1immediatelystarteddisclosingeverythingtohim.On
comingtoknowaboutallthehappenings,P.W.2toldP.W.1thatshewaswronginnot
disclosingabouttheoccurrencetohim.However,hetoldherthatsheshouldtakestepsto
getappropriatepunishmentforA1.Sosaying,hedroveheroutofmatrimonialhome.She
thereafterreturnedtoCoimbatoretothehouseofP.W.3.Whenshetoldaboutallthe
happenings,P.W.3alsotoldthatherhusbandwasrightindrivingheroutofmatrimonial
home.Findingnootheroption,P.W.1wenttothehouseofthesisterofP.W.3andtoldher
abouttheoccurrence.P.W.3'ssister'shusband(P.W.24)assuredherthathewouldpersuade
P.W.2.Accordingly,hewenttoCoimbatoreandbroughtP.W.2.Inthepresenceofthesister
ofP.W.3andherhusband,whenP.W.1furtherenquiredthedetails,P.W.1narrated
everything.

10.P.W.1andP.W.2thereafterwenttoanAdvocatebynameMr.C.P.Venkatramanat
Coimbatoreandtoldhimabouttheoccurrenceandwantedhimtotakelegalaction.
Mr.C.P.VenkatramanwantedP.W.1todraftacomplaintnarratingtheentireoccurrence.P.W.1
accordinglydraftedacomplaintandgaveittoMr.C.P.Venkatraman.Onreadingthesame,
Mr.C.P.Venkatramanwasnotsatisfied.Hefoundsomelapsesandomissionsinthesame.Then,

hecalledhisJuniorAdvocatebynameMs.Seethaanddirectedhertodraftanappropriate
complaint.ThesaidJuniorAdvocatecorrectedthecomplaintdraftedbyP.W.1andgavethe
sametoherSeniorAdvocate.Thereafter,asadvisedbyMr.C.P.Venkatraman,Advocate,P.W.1
forwardedthesaidcomplainttotheGovernor,ChiefMinisterandDistrictCollectorandalso
tothehigherofficials.Mr.C.P.Venkatraman,AdvocatetoldP.W.1tomeethimafterreceipt
ofthepostalacknowledgementcards.Afterfewdays,shereceivedacknowledgementcards.
However,therewasnofurtheractiontakenonthecomplaint.Therefore,shewenttothe
officeoftheDistrictCollector,Coimbatoreandsubmittedacopyofthesaidcomplaint.
TheDistrictCollectorinstructedhertogotoAllWomenPoliceStation,Coimbatore.
Accordingly,P.W.1andP.W.2wenttoAllWomenPoliceStationon08.07.2003.Thethen
InspectorofPolice[P.W.49]whowasinchargeofthepolicestationtoldP.W.1thatshehad
notreceivedanycomplaint.Then,shewantedP.W.1togiveafreshcomplaint.Accordingly,
P.W.1draftedacomplaint(Ex.P1)andsubmittedthesametotheInspectorofPolice,All
WomenPoliceStation,Coimbatore(P.W.49).

11.P.W.49,registeredacaseonthesaidcomplainton08.07.2003inCr.No.12of
2003foroffencesunderSections376and109ofIPC.Ex.P.1isthecomplaintandEx.P.41is
theFIR.HeforwardedtheFIRandtheComplainttothelearnedJudicialMagistrateNo.I,
Coimbatoreforthwith.Thereafter,sheexaminedP.Ws.1and2andrecordedtheirstatements
atthepolicestationitself.

12.P.W.20isanotherimportantwitness.Accordingtohim,P.W.1approachedone
AtchayaArumugamandotherpanchayatdarstomediatebetweenherandthefirstaccusedtoget
backthenudephotographs.AccordingtohimAtchayaArumugamonlyrequestedhimto
participateinthesaidmediation.Accordingly,inthemonthofJune2002thefirstaccused
wascalledformediation.Inthatmediation,P.W.1participatedandsherequestedforthe
returnofthenudephotographstoher.ButA1declinedtohandoverthesameandhe
challengedP.W.1totakeanyactionthatcouldbepossibleforher.

13.TheotherincriminatingevidenceisthatofP.W.48.HeisaresidentofAgali
villageinPalakaddistrict.HewasalsothethenPanchayatBoardPresident.Accordingto
him,A2wasknowntohimandonverymanyoccasionstheywenttogetherforservicetothe
poorpeople.Hewouldfurtherstatethatduringtheyear2003,A2cametotheofficeof
P.W.48andtoldhimthatshewasonherwaytogotoMannarkaduvillage.ButP.W.48was
busy.Havingwaitedforsometime,thesecondaccusedtoldP.W.48thatshewouldgoto
Mannarkaduvillageandreturnsoon.Atthattime,heinformedP.W48thatshewouldkeepher
luggageinhisofficeandshewouldcomeaftersometimeandtakeitback.P.W.48accordingly
permittedher.ThenA2leftherluggageintheofficeofP.W.48.Sometimethereafterthe
sonofA2cametoP.W.48andwantedtotakebacktheluggage.Sincehewasnotknownto
P.W.48,P.W.48didnotpermithim.InsteadhetoldhimthatA2couldcomeandtakeitback.
ButhersontoldthatA2wasinjailinconnectionwithacase.P.W.48toldhimthatafter
returningfromjailshecouldcomeandtakebacktheluggage.Onthesameday,after
sometime,apersonwhoclaimstobeafriendofA1spoketohimabouttheluggage.P.W.48
toldhimthathewasnotknowntohimandthereforehewantedthesaidpersontocomein
person.Buthedidnotturnedup.Becauseofthesetwoincidents,P.W.48developed
suspicionabouttheluggage.Thenherequestedhisofficeboytokeepitcarefully.
Thereafter,sincehebelievedthattherewassomeproblemwiththeluggage,hewenttohis
officeandverifiedthesame.Itwasablackcoloursuitcase.On11.09.2003,hewastogo
toCoimbatoreinconnectionwithmedicaltreatmenttooneofhisfriends,whilesogoingto
Coimbatore,hetooktheabovesuitcaseleftbehindbyA2andhandedoverthesametoP.W.49
theInspectorofPolice.

14.Thesaidsuitcase(M.O.65)wasnumberlocked.Itcouldnotbethereforeopened.
P.W.49summonedtwowitnessesnamelyP.W.36Mr.ShanmugamandP.W.48.Onsuchopening,in
thesuitcaseMOs.48to64wererecovered.Thesematerialswererecoveredinthepresence
ofthesaidwitnessesunderexhibitEx.P.21Mahazar.OfalltheMOsrecoveredfromthesaid
suitcaseMO.48arevitalobjects.TheyarefournudephotographsofP.W.1.P.W.1has
identifiedthesameduringTrial.Theotherwitnesseshavespokentoaboutonlycertain
othercircumstances.ThemedicalevidencesspokentobytheDoctorswouldgotoshowthat

A1iscapableofperformingsexualintercoursewithawoman.Italsofurtherrevealsthat
P.W.1wasusedtosexualintercoursebuttherewasnoexternalinjuriesandnoevidenceof
recentsexualintercourseintheformofanyseminalstainonthebodyofP.W.1,sinceshe
wasmedicallyexaminedaftersevenmonthsoftheoccurrence.Duringthecourseof
investigation,P.W.1'sstatementwasrecordedbyP.W.43thelearnedJudicialMagistrate
underSection164Cr.P.C.

15.P.W.49hasspokentoabouttheinvestigationdone.FromtheevidenceofP.W.49,
itisrevealedthatshepreparedtheObservationMahazarandtheRoughSketchontheplace
ofoccurrenceinthepresenceofwitnesses.Sheconductedhousesearchofthehouseofboth
theaccused,beforethearrestoftheaccused,butnothingincriminatingwasrecovered.The
placeofoccurrencewasalsophotographedbyherthroughaphotographer(P.W.10).A1was
arrestedon08.07.2003at3.00p.m.Thesecondaccusedwasarrestedonthesamedayat6.00
p.m.BoththeaccusedwereforwardedtotheCourtforJudicialRemand.Thefirstaccused
wassentformedicalexaminationthroughCourt.P.W.16,DoctorChristopherMariadoss
examinedthefirstaccusedandfoundthathewascapableofperformingsexualintercourse
withawoman.Noexternalinjurywasfoundonhim.Ex.P.9isthecertificateissuedby
P.W.16inthisregard.

16.P.W.49,obtainedsearchwarrantsfromthelearnedJudicialMagistratetoconduct
housesearchofthehouseandshopofA1.Similarlyshegotanothersearchwarrantto
conducthousesearchofthehouseofA2.P.W.49deputedtheSubInspectorofPolice
Mrs.Amutha(P.W.27)toconducthousesearchasperwarrantissued.

17.P.W.27conductedhousesearchofthehouseofA1on12.07.2003at11.45P.M.in
thepresenceofP.W.8andanotherwitnessP.W.14.Butinthesaidhousenothing
incriminatingwasrecovered.At3.30p.m.sheconductedhousesearchinthepresenceof
somewitnessesattheshopofA1viz.,SriKrishna&Co,T.V.Showroom.Therealsono
incriminatingmaterialwasrecovered.

18.P.W.49conductedhousesearchatthehouseofA2inthepresenceofP.W.14and
anotherwitness.MOs.27to47wererecoveredfromthehouseofA2(noneofthesematerial
objectsincriminatetheaccusedinanymannerwiththecrime)Ex.B10isthehousesearch
listpreparedonthespot.OnthesamedayinthepresenceofP.W.13andanotherwitnessshe
recoveredthecarbearingregistrationNo.TN37K9007,whichbelongedtothefirstaccused.

19.Thereafteron15.07.2003,ontheordersoftheMagistrate,P.W.49gotthe
custodyofA2.On16.07.2003,at9.30aminthePoliceStation,A2gavevoluntary
confessioninthepresenceofP.W.11andoneSivalingam.Thesamewasrecorded.Inthe
saidconfession,shedisclosedthatshehadkepttwovideocamerasintheshopofthefirst
accused.BasedonthesameshetookthepolicetotheshopofA1andproducedMos.3to26.
TheywererecoveredunderEx.P6Mahazar(noneofthesematerialsincriminatetheaccused
withthecrimeinanymanner).ThensheforwardedthesecondaccusedtotheCourtfor
judicialremand.Sherecoveredthephotographstakenfromtheplaceofoccurrencefromthe
photographer(P.W.10)on29.07.2003.Thefirstaccusedwastakenintopolicecustodyonthe
ordersofthelearnedJudicialmagistrate.On30.07.2003,inthepresenceofP.W.35and
anotherwitnesshegaveaconfessionbutnothingwasrecoveredoutofthesaidconfession.
P.W.49,thencollectedthecallparticularsinrespectofPhoneNos.2479753,2470406and
2437092fortheperiodbetween01.03.2003to08.07.2003.SheexaminedMrs.Annammal(P.W.37)
whowastheservantofP.W.1.TheTamiltranslationoftheletterwrittenbyheras
dictatedbyP.W.1andaddressedtothewifeofthefirstaccusedwasrecoveredfromthesaid
witnessandthesameisexhibitedasEx.P.51.WhileP.W.49wasondutyatthePolice
Station,P.W.48producedthesuitcaseon11.09.2003.Thesamewasopenedinthepresenceof
P.W36andanotherwitnessandrecoveredthearticlesincludingMO.48,nudephotographs.She
examinedtheDoctorsandcollectedthemedicalrecords.Finallyoncompletingthe
investigation,shelaidthechargesheeton01.10.2003,againstthefirstaccusedunder
Sections366,376and506ofI.P.C.andunderSections376r/w109and506ofI.P.C.against
thesecondaccused.


20.Basedontheabovematerials,thetrialcourtframedasmanyas4chargesas
follows:
(i)ThefirstchargeisagainstA1underSection366ofIPCforhavingallegedly
abductedP.W.1inhiscarfromFlowerMarketBusStoptothehouseofA2.
(ii)ThesecondchargeisagainstA1underSection376ofIPContheallegationthathe
hadcommittedrapeonP.W.1atthehouseofA2.
(iii)ThethirdchargeisagainstbothA1andA2underSection506ofIPConthe
allegationsthattheycriminallyintimidatedP.W.1on30.04.2003andalsoonsubsequent
dates.
(iv)ThefourthchargeisagainstA2underSection376r/w109ofIPCforhaving
abettedthecommissionofcrimeofrapebyA1atthehouseofA2.

21.Theaccuseddeniedthecharges.Therefore,thetrialcourtwentaheadwiththe
trial.Inordertoestablishthecharges,theprosecutionexaminedasmanyas49witnesses
andmarked51documentsbesides66materialsobjects.

22.WhentheaboveincriminatingmaterialswereputtoA1andA2underSection313
ofCr.P.C.,theydeniedthesameasfalse.However,theydidnotchosetoexamineany
witnessnordidtheyexhibitanydocument.Havingconsideredtheabovematerials,thetrial
courtconvictedbothA1andA2andsentencedthemasdetailedinthesecondparagraphof
thisjudgement.Aggrievedoverthesame,theappellantsarenowbeforethiscourtwiththis
criminalappeal.

23.Inthisappeal,thelearnedcounselappearingfortheappellantsmainly
focussedhisargumentsonthefollowinggrounds:
(i)Thoughtheoccurrenceissaidtohavetakenplaceon26.11.2002,thecomplaintto
thepolicewasmadeonlyon08.07.2003i.e.,nearlyafter7monthsforwhichabsolutely
thereisnoexplanation.
(ii)ThecomplaintwasdraftedinconsultationwithtwoAdvocatesbyname
Mr.C.P.VenkatramanandMs.Seetha.ThecomplaintdraftedbyP.W.1atthefirstinstancewith
thehelpoftheAdvocateswassenttotheDistrictCollector,Hon'bleChiefMinisterand
HigherPoliceOfficialsbutthesamehasnotbeenbroughtonrecordandthesamehasbeen
completedsuppressed.
(iii)Ex.P.1complaintwasgiventothepoliceonlyon08.07.2003.Thiscomplaintwas
draftedatthepolicestationbyP.W.1andP.W.2.Thesaidcomplaintis,therefore,hitby
Section162ofCr.P.C.
(iv)ThefailureonthepartofP.W.1innotdisclosingabouttheallegedoccurrence
toanybodyforabout7monthsisanunnaturalconductofP.W.1whichcreatesseriousdoubts
inthecaseoftheprosecution.
(v)TheconductofP.Ws.2and3inthrowingP.W.1outoftheirrespectivehouseswould
clearlygotoindicatethatP.W.1wasnotofgoodcharacterandtheythemselvesdidnot
believetheversionofP.W.1.TheevidenceofP.W.1cannotbebelievedatall.
(vi)TheevidenceofP.W.1thatshegaveasimilarcomplaintagainstP.W.22wouldgo
toshowthatP.W.1wasinthehabitofmakingfalsecomplaintsand,therefore,shecannotbe
believed.
(vii)Thephotographs[M.O.48]showingP.W.1nudewerenotrecoveredfromtheaccused
andthereisnoevidenceconnectingthephotographswithanyoftheaccusedandsothesame
cannotbeusedagainsttheaccused.
(viii)Thephotographsmarkedas[M.O.48]arenotadmissibleinevidenceintheabsence
ofnegativesofthesame.
(ix)Therearelotofmaterialcontradictionsbetweenvariousevidenceswhichgotothe
veryrootofthecaseoftheprosecution.Thustheprosecutionhasnotprovedthecharges
beyondreasonabledoubts.

24.Thelearnedcounselfortheappellantsarguedextensivelyhighlightingtheabove
grounds.Inconclusion,hesubmittedthatthetrialcourthasfailedtoconsiderallthe
aboveaspectsand,therefore,theappellantsareentitledforacquittal.

25.ThelearnedPublicProsecutorrepresentingtheStatewouldstoutlyopposethis

criminalappeal.Accordingtohim,thedelayinpreferringthecomplaintisimmaterial
inasmuchasP.W.1herselfhasexplainedawaythedelayinaplausiblemanner.Accordingto
her,sincethemarriagearrangementsforherbrotherwasunderwayandsinceherfatherwas
seriouslyillatthattime,shedidnotthinkofdisclosingabouttheoccurrencetoanybody
ortogiveacomplainttothepolice.Thisexplanationisquitenaturaland,therefore,the
sameistobeaccepted,hecontended.

26.ThoughEx.P1issubsequentinpointoftimeandthoughtheearliercomplaints
preferredtothepoliceandhigherupshavenotbeenbroughtonrecord,thesamehavenot
causedanyseriousdentinthecaseoftheprosecution.Hewouldfurtherstatethatan
offenceofrape,thattoocommittedinagruesomemanner,cannotbelightlyviewedlikethat
ofanyotheroffencesoastoacquittheculpritsonthegroundthattherehasoccurredsome
delayinpreferringthecomplaintoronthegroundofsuppressionofearliercomplaint.

27.HewouldfurthercontendthatthereisnothingunnaturalintheconductofP.Ws.
1to3andtherearenoreasonstorejecttheirevidences.Thephotographs(M.O.48[series])
wouldclearlygotoestablishthatP.W.1wasphotographedafterundressingherinan
inhumanemanner.ThephotographswererecoveredfromthecustodyofP.W.48asthesuitcase
containingthesamewerehandedovertohimbyA2.Thesephotographswouldalsoclearlygo
tofurtherstrengthentheevidenceofP.W.1.Thefailureofproductionofnegativesof
M.O.48photographs[series]wouldnotmakethephotographsinadmissibleinevidenceinasmuch
asM.O.48photographs[series]areitselfprimaryevidence.

28.Hewentontoarguethatthoughtherewerecertaincontradictionsand
improbabilitiespointedoutbythelearnedcounselappearingfortheappellants,onthat
score,theentirecaseoftheprosecutioncannotbethrownout.Thus,accordingtothe
learnedPublicProsecutor,theappealdeservestobedismissed.

29.Ihaveconsideredtheabovesubmissionsveryanxiouslyandalsogonethroughthe
recordsthoroughly.

30.Rapeisnotonlyacrimeagainstthepersonofawoman(victim),itisacrime
againsttheentiresociety.Itdestroystheentirepsychologyofawomanandpushesher
intodeepemotionalcrises.Itisonlybyhersheerwillpowerthatsherehabilitates
herselfinthesocietywhich,oncomingtoknowoftherape,looksdownuponherinderision
andcontempt.Rapeis,therefore,themosthatedcrime.Itisacrimeagainstbasichuman
rightsandisalsoviolativeofthevictim'smostcherishedofthefundamentalrights,
namely,theRighttoLifecontainedinArticle21.RighttoLifedoesnotmerelymean
animalexistencebutmeanssomethingmore,namelytherighttolivewithhumandignity.
RighttoLifewould,therefore,includeallthoseaspectsoflifewhichgotomakealife
meaningful,completeandworthliving.Thecaseonhand,isonesuchunfortunatecasewhere
itisallegedthatP.W.1wasallegedlyrapedandthereaftershewasstrippednudeand
photographedbyA1soastopressurisehertoconcedetothelustfuldesireofA1asand
whenrequired.Nevertheless,theaccusedagainstwhomsuchseriousallegationsaremadeis
entitledtohaveafairtrialwhichformspartoftherighttolifeguaranteedunderArticle
21oftheConstitutionofIndia.Itcouldbeseenthatthiscasehascausedlotof
commotioninthepublicattractingpublicitybythepressandmedia.TheHon'bleSupreme
CourtinStateofMaharashtrav.RajendraJawanmalGandhi,reportedin1998SCC(Cri)76has
cautionedthateveryjudgehastoguardhimselfagainstanysuchpressureandshould
strictlybeguidedbytheruleoflaw.Withtheabovebackground,bothlegalandfactual,
letmenowproceedtoanalysetheevidenceavailableonrecord.

31.TheprosecutionreliesmainlyontheevidenceofP.W.1toprovethechargeof
rapeagainstA1andthechargeofabatementofrapeagainstA2.Thequestioniswhetherit
willbesafetosustaintheconvictionoftheaccusedsolelyonthebasisoftheevidenceof
P.W.1intheabsenceofanycorroborationfromanyothersource.Expectingcorroboration
fromanyothersourceisonlyaruleofcautionandnotaruleofevidence.Itisnota
universallawthatthecourtshouldexpectcorroborationinvariablyinallcasestothe
evidenceofthevictimofcrimeofrape.Italldependsupontheveracityofthevictimand
thereliabilityoftheevidenceofsuchwitness.Itisnotuncommonthatinacasewhere
theevidenceofavictim,if,inspiresconfidenceofthecourt,withoutlookingforany

corroborationfromanyothersource,thecourtdoesactupontheuncorroboratedtestimonyof
suchwitnesstosustaintheconviction.Mostly,theoffenceofrapeiscommittedina
closedroomorinanisolatedplace.Suchcrimesaremostlycommittedmeticulouslywithout
leavinganyincriminatingevidenceagainsttheculpritsexcepttheevidenceofthe
prosecutrixherself.Itisbecauseofthisreason,theHon'bleSupremeCourthasbeen
consistentlytakingtheviewthatinacaseofrape,itisnotnecessaryforthecourtto
lookforcorroborationfromanyothersource.Ingeneral,Indianwomenwhoareknownfor
theirmodestyandculturewillnotgowithanyfalsecomplaintofrape.Thisisnotalegal
presumption.But,suchfactualpresumptionisalsopossibleinIndianconditions.With
thisletmenowmoveonthetheevidenceofP.W.1.

32.InordertoassailtheevidenceofP.W.1andtomakeitunbelievable,the
learnedcounselappearingfortheappellantwouldsubmitthattherehadbeeninordinate
delayofmorethansevenmonthsinpreferringcomplaintforwhichabsolutelytherehasbeen
noexplanationoffered.Thisdelayaccordingtothelearnedcounselisfataltothecaseof
theprosecution.

33.ButthelearnedPublicProsecutorwouldsubmitthatthedelayhasbeenexplained
away.Asamatteroffact,accordingtothelearnedPublicProsecutor,P.W.1herselfhas
explainedthedelayinasmuchasshehasstatedthatshedidnotdisclosetheoccurrenceto
anybodyincludingherhusband,motherandherrelativesbecauseofthefactthatherfather
wasailingandfurtherthemarriagearrangementforherbrotherwouldgetspoiledifthe
occurrencecametolight.

34.Inmyconsideredopinion,inacaseofrape,wheretheoffenceaffectsthe
entirepsychologyofthewomanandalsotendstobringhertoridiculeintheeyeofthe
public,thevictimofsuchrapecannotbeexpectedtoeitherdiscloseaboutthesexual
violencemadeonherforthwithtoanybodyortogotothepolicepromptlywithacomplaint.
Inthiscase,admittedly,P.W.1wasamarriedwomanlivingwithherhusbandandhavingtwo
children.Shehasstatedthatshedidnotdisclosetheoccurrencetoanybodybecausesuch
disclosurewouldspoilhermaritallifeandwouldalsospoilthemarriagearrangementsof
hisbrother.ThisexplanationhasbeenacceptedbytheTrialCourtandrightlyso.

35.Yetanotherfactwhichneedstobementionedisthatthefirstaccuseddisclosed
toherthathehadthenudephotographsofhertakenatthetimeofoccurrence.Healso
intimidatedherthathewouldpublishthephotographssoastobringfurtherridiculetoher
ifshedisclosedtheoccurrencetoanybody.ThiswasyetanotherreasonastowhyP.W.1did
notdiscloseabouttheoccurrencetoanybody.

36.Shedidnotstopwiththat.ShewenttothePanchayadarsandwiththeirhelp
shetriedtoatleastgetthephotographsfromthecustodyofthefirstaccused.Thishas
beenprovedbytheevidenceofP.Ws.20.P.W.20isalocalmanandaleadingpolitician.He
isthefriendofoneAtchayaArumugam,VelliangiriandMarudachalam.Accordingtohim,
AtchayaArumugam,VelliangiriandMarudachalamrequestedhimtoparticipateinthe
compromisetalksbetweenP.W.1andthefirstaccusedsoastopersuadethefirstaccusedto
handoverthenudephotographsofP.W.1.HehasfurtherstatedthatthisPanchayatitself
wasconvenedontherequestmadebyP.W.1.P.W.1participatedinthesaidPanchayat.The
firstaccusedtoldthathewouldnotreturnthephotographs.Thuseveryattemptmadeby
thesemediatorstopersuadethefirstaccusedtoreturnthephotographsfailed.P.W.1,
duringcrossexamination,hasfurtherstatedthatshewouldnothavegonetothepoliceto
preferacomplaintifthefirstaccusedhadreturnedthephotographstoher.Thiswillgoa
longwaytoshowthatP.W.1didnotwanttodisclosetheoccurrencetoanybodyaswellto
thepoliceonlyinordertosavehermodesty.Shewasthusveryparticularonlytogetback
thephotographsandtohidetheoccurrencefromtheeyesofthepublic.Sincethatalso
failed,thereafter,shewenttoAdvocateMr.C.P.Venkatramantodraftacomplaintand
thereaftershewenttothepolicewiththecomplaint.Fromthenarrationofthefactsby
P.Ws.1to3andP.W.20,thepainofP.W.1couldbeperceived.Withheavyheart,shewasall
alongfranticallytryingtogetbackthephotographs.Allthesefactswouldonlygoto
explainthedelayinpreferringthecomplainttothePolice.Thus,Iholdthatthedelay
hasbeenproperlyexplainedbyP.W.1andthesaiddelay,thougherroneous,hasnotcreated

anydoubtinthecaseoftheprosecution.

37.Nextly,itiscontendedbythelearnedcounselthatthecomplaintwasdrafted
withthehelpofaSeniorAdvocateaswellasaJuniorAdvocatewhichwouldgotoshowthat
P.W.1didnotcomeforwardwiththetruth.ButthelearnedPublicProsecutorwouldcontend
thatP.W.1andherhusbandhadgonetotheAdvocateonlytoseekhishelp.Thereisnothing
wronginthesame.Inmyconsideredopiniontoo,goingbytheheinousnatureofthecrime
thereisnothingunnaturalintheconductofP.Ws.1and2ingoingtoanAdvocatetohave
legalconsultation.TheintentionofP.Ws.1and2allalongwastogetthenudephotographs
fromthecustodyoftheaccused.Therefore,theyhadgonetotheAdvocatetotakeactionin
thisregard.HavingsuchconsultationwithaLawyercannotcreatedoubtinthecaseofthe
prosecutioninallsituations.Italldependsuponthefactsandcircumstancesofeach
case.

38.P.W.1wouldfurtherstatethatsheherselfdraftedthecomplaintandgavethe
sametotheAdvocateMr.C.P.Venkataraman.Fromtheevidenceitisseenthat
Mr.C.P.Venkataramanalsodidnotdraftanythingoutofhisownimagination.Herightly
instructedP.W.1todraftthecomplaintnarratingonlythefacts.P.W.1didso.Buton
goingthroughthecomplainthewasnotsatisfiedbecausethecomplaintdidnotcontainall
thedetailsdisclosedtohimorally.Therefore,hehadinstructedhisJuniorAdvocateto
correctthesame.Thecomplaintwasthereaftercorrectedonlyincorporatingthefactswhich
wereearlieromitted.Thoughdraftingacomplaintafterdiscussionwithalawyerwill
normallycreateadoubtinthegenuinenessofthecase,inthiscase,goingbythepeculiar
factsandcircumstances,Iamoftheviewthatthesamewouldnotcreateanydoubt.

39.ThelearnedcounselwouldnextlycontendthatthecomplaintinEx.P1whichcame
intobeinglongafterthecomplaintgiventotheDistrictCollectorandhigherpolice
officialsishitbySection162oftheCr.P.C.andthereforenoreliancecanbehadonthe
same.Thoughattractive,thesaidargumentdeservesonlytoberejected.AsperSection
162ofCr.P.Canystatementwhichismadebyawitnessduringthecourseofinvestigation
aloneishitbythesaidprovision.Butinthiscase,Ex.P1isthefirstandearliest
complainttothepoliceuponwhichthecasewasregisteredandthuslawwassetinmotion.
ThepreviouscomplaintgiventotheDistrictCollectordidnotreachthepolicetillthen.
Itwasreceivedbythepoliceonlysubsequenttotheregistrationofthecase.Thesamehas
alsobeenmarkedinevidenceasEx.P.17.Inmyconsideredopinion,sinceEx.P.17cameinto
beingatthehandsoftheInvestigatingOfficersubsequenttotheregistrationofthecase,
itisnotadmissibleevidence.Thesaidstatementviz.,Ex.P.17thereforecannotbeused
forcorroborationoftheevidenceofP.W.1.However,thesamehasbeenerroneouslymarked
inevidencebytheTrialCourt.Thus,IholdthatEx.P1isnotinadmissibleinevidenceas
thebarcontainedinSection162Cr.P.C.isnotatallapplicable.

40.Thenextcontentionofthelearnedcounselfortheappellantisbasedonthe
evidenceofP.Ws.2and3.HewouldpointoutthatP.W.2,thehusband,sentheroutofthe
matrimonialhomeonknowingtheoccurrence.Similarly,whenP.W.2informedP.W.3,shealso
sentheroutofherhome.Accordingtothelearnedcounselthiswouldonlygotoshowthat
P.W.1wasnotawomanofgoodcharacter.Thereforeaccordingtohimsheisnotbelievable.
But,Iamnotpersuadedbythisargument.TheconductofP.W.2ingettingpersuadedbyhis
sister'shusbandandthenjoiningP.W.2togotoCollector'sofficetoprefercomplaintand
thentothePoliceStationneedstobeconsidered.Thiswouldgiveaninferencethatatthe
firstinstanceP.W.2wouldhavebeendepressedonknowingtheoccurrenceandlateronhe
wouldhaverealisedhismistakeinsendingP.W.1outofhome.Thus,theconductofP.Ws.2
and3willnotgiverisetoapresumptionthatP.W.1isawomanofbadcharacter.Assuming
thatP.W.1isawomanofquestionablecharacterthatwillnotautomaticallyrenderher
evidenceunbelievablesoastoabsolvetheseaccusedfromtheirliability.

41.Thenextcontentionofthelearnedcounselisonthebasisoftheevidenceof
P.W.22.P.W.22hasstatedthatP.W.1gaveafalsecomplaintagainsthim.Theevidenceof
P.W.22isnothingbutacautiontothisCourttoappreciatetheevidenceofP.W.1carefully.
Thelearnedcounselwouldalsobringtomynoticethatafterthejudgmentinthiscase,
P.W.1hasmadeasimilarcomplaintagainstoneMr.Rahunath,wherein,shehasstatedthaton

28.06.2010,whileshewaswaitinginPalakadbusstand,shewassimilarlytakeninacar,
sedatedandrapedbythataccused.Onthesaidcomplaint,acasehasbeenregisteredin
CrimeNo.24of2011onthefileofthePalakaduTownSouthPoliceStationunderSections
366,354and342ofI.P.CagainstthesaidRehunath.RequestingtheCourttorelyonthe
same,thelearnedcounselwouldsubmitthatP.W.1isinthehabitofmakingsuchfalse
complaintsofrape.Atthisjuncture,IwouldliketostatethatacopyofthesaidFIRwas
soughttobeproducedinevidenceinthisappeal,forwhichtheappellantfiled
Crl.M.P.No.38of2011andthesamewasdismissedbythisCourton10.06.2011,statingthat
thesaidstatement,beingasubsequentstatement,cannotbeusedeventocontradictP.W.1.
Therefore,theattemptmadebythelearnedcounselfortheappellanttomakerelianceofthe
saidFIRcannotbeconcededto.

42.Thenextcontentionoftheappellantisthat,assumingthatP.W.1canbe
believed,eventhenthereisnoevidencetoprovethechargeofrape.Inordertoprove
rape,theprosecutionmakesrelianceonlyontheevidenceofP.W.1.Accordingtoher
evidence,assoonassheenteredintothehouseofA2,shewasmadetodrinkjuiceandon
takingthesame,shebecameunconscious.Therefore,shewasnotabletorealisewhatwas
happeningtoher.Whensheregainedconsciousnessintheeveningbyabout5.005.30p.m.
shefoundherselflyingonthebedinnudeposition.Shecouldnotbeexpectedto
explicitlystatewhetherthefirstaccusedhadsexualintercoursewithherornotasshewas
fullyunconscious.Inherevidence,shehasonlystatedthatwhileshewasinsedation,
shewasspoiled.Shehasnotstatedanythingaboutpenetration.Shehasfurtherstatedthat
shehadanurgetopassurineandwhenshewenttothetoilettopassurine,shefoundsome
volatilesubstanceinhervaginaandsoshewashedthesame.Atthisjuncture,itis
pertinenttomentionthatP.W.1isfairlyanoldwomanhavingtwochildrenandlivingin
maritallifeformorethan16years.Therefore,shemustbeknowingastowhatsemenisand
howitwouldstainthevaginaduringsexualintercourse.Butshehasnotstatedthatwhat
wasfoundbyherinhervaginawassemen.Shehasonlystatedthatshenotedinhervagina
avolatilesubstance.SuchvolatilesubstancenoticedbyP.W.1mightevenbevaginal
dischargeofherown.Unlessthesaidpossibilityisruledout,itcannotbesafely
concludedthatthesubstancewassemen.ThuseventheevidenceofP.W.1doesnotprovethe
presenceofsemensoastoindicateasignofrape.

43.P.W.1hasfurtherstatedthatwhensheregainedconsciousness,shefoundthe
firstaccusedlyingbyherside.Hewasalsonude.Thiswillnotgotoprovethathehad
sexualintercoursewithher.

44.Normallywhenawomanisrapedundersedation,suchrapecanbeprovedby
circumstantialevidence.Onesuchverystrongcircumstanceisalwaysthemedicalevidence.
But,inthiscase,thereisnoothercircumstantialevidenceavailableincludingthemedical
evidencetoprovepenetrationconstitutingarape.Thus,inmyconsideredopinion,the
prosecutionhasfailedtoprovetheoffenceofrape.

45.ButtheevidenceofP.W.1thatshefoundherselflyingnudecannotbediscarded
lightly.HerfurtherevidencethatA1waslyingbyhersideinnudepositionalsocannotbe
brushedaside.WhenP.W.1wasgivenjuiceandwassedated,shewasinherfulldressand
whenshewasrelievedofffromsedation,shewasnudeandthattooshewaslyingbytheside
ofthefirstaccusedwhowasalsonude.Thispartoftheevidence,inmyconsideredopinion,
isinconsistentwiththeinnocenceoftheaccused.

46.Thenextaspectisregardingthenudephotographs(MO.48series).Accordingto
P.W.1,assoonastheoccurrence,thesetwoaccusedtoldherthattheyhadtakennude
photographsofherandtheydirectedhernottodisclosethesametoanybody.Afterthree
daysoftheoccurrence,A1againcalledheroverphoneandtoldherthathehadgiventhe
photostoA2andP.W.1couldcomeoverthereandascertainthatsuchphotographshadbeen
taken.Accordingly,P.W.1wenttothehouseofA2wherethenudephotographsofP.W.1were
showntoher.ThiswouldonlygotoprovethatbymakingP.W.1nude,afterremovingher
thaliandotherjewelleryfromherbodyandalsoaftertyingayellowthreadaroundher
neck,A1andA2hadtakenthenudephotographsofP.W.1.M.Os.48arethesaidnude
photographs.AperusalofthesamewouldgotoshowthatP.W.1islyingnudeonthecotand

thereisalsoayellowthreadaroundherneck.Hereyesarefoundclosedindicatingthat
shewasundersedation.Afurtherperusalofthesamewouldgotoshowthatthesaid
photographscouldhavebeentakeninfulllight.NowomanofthestatureofP.W.1would
havevolunteeredtohavephotographedinsuchnudeposition.Therefore,Ihaveno
hesitationtoholdthatM.O.48seriesnudephotographsweretakenonlybythesetwoaccused
byforce.

47.ThelearnedcounselwouldcontendthatM.O.48serieshavegotnoconnectionwith
theaccusedastheywerenotrecoveredfromanyoftheseaccused.Thephotographswere
recoveredfromP.W.48.P.W.48wasknowntoA2.Sometimeafterthedateofoccurrence,A2
cametohisoffice,leftaluggageinhisofficeandwenttoOoty.Aftersometimei.e.after
thearrestofA2,hersoncametohimandwantedhimtoreturntheluggage.P.W.48toldhim
thatsincehewasnotknowntoP.W.48,hecouldnothandoverthesametohim.Heinsisted
thatA2couldcomeandcollectit.Thereafter,yetanotherpersonwhoclaimedtobea
friendofthefirstaccusedspoketohimoverphoneaboutthesuitcase.Thereafter,he
developedasuspicionandthenwenttothepolicestationandhandedoverthesuitcaseto
P.W.49.There,inthepresenceofVillageAdministrativeOfficer(P.W.36)andanother
witness,thesuitcasewasbrokeopenwhichcontainedsomanymaterialsincludingM.O.48nude
photographs.ThoughP.W.48wassubjectedtolengthycrossexamination,nothingcouldbe
broughtonrecordtodiscredithim.ThereisnothingattributedtoP.W.48forfalsely
deposingagainstA2.FromtheevidenceofP.W.48,ithasbeenclearlyestablishedbythe
prosecutionthatthesuitcaseand(M.O.48)nudephotographswerekeptinthesuitcaseatthe
officeofP.W.48onlybyA2.Thustheprosecutionhasprovedthatthenudephotographswere
inthepossessionofA2whenshecametotheofficeofP.W.48.M.O.48hasbeenidentifiedby
P.W.1.ThustheevidenceofP.W.48andthepossessionofphotographs(M.O.48series)inthe
handsofA2woulddulycorroboratetheevidenceofP.W.1,whereinP.W.1hasstatedthatshe
foundthenudephotographsinthecustodyofA2threedaysaftertheoccurrence.Thisis
againcorroboratedbyP.W.20whoattemptedtomediatesoastogetthephotographs.Thus,
itiscrystalclearthatthesephotographs(M.O.48series)weretakenonlybythesetwo
accusedandtheyhadkeptitsecretlyonlywithaviewtointimidateP.W.1.

48.ThelearnedcounselfortheappellantwouldnextlycontendthattheseM.O.48
seriesarenotadmissibleevidencebecausethenegativeshavenotbeenproducedinevidence.
Inmyconsideredopinion,nonproductionofnegativeswillmakethephotographsinadmissible
ifonlythephotographshavebeentakeninacamerawhichusesphotofilms.Butdueto
advancementinscienceandtechnology,nowadays,therearedigitalcameraswhichcan
photographanythingwithouttherebeingphotofilms.Fromadigitalcamera,photoscanbe
directlyprinted.Inthedigitalcameratheprintoutviz.,photoitselfistheprimary
evidence.Inthecamerasofoldendays,thenegativeistheprimaryevidenceandphotocan
betreatedonlyassecondaryevidence.TheCourtshaveheldthatintheabsenceofprimary
evidenceviz.,negativesthephotosarenotadmissibleinevidence.Regardingthislegal
position,therecanbenosecondopinion.Butinthesedayswhenaphotographistakenby
usingaDigitalcamera,thephotographitselfistheprimaryevidenceandthereforethe
questionofproducingthenegativesdoesnotarise.Inthecaseonhand,thecameras
recoveredfromtheaccusedaredigitalcameras.Therefore,insistingfornegativestomake
M.O.48seriesadmissiblecannotbecountenanced.IholdthatM.O.48seriesareadmissible
inevidence.

49.Fromtheforegoingdiscussions,itcanbeputinnutshellthatthesetwoaccused
sedatedP.W.1,undressedher,madehercompletelynudeandtooknudephotographs.Though
P.W.1statesthatintwophotographsthefirstaccusedwasfoundhuggingher,inM.O.48
seriesthesameisnotfoundandinallthephotographs(M.O.48series)P.W.1aloneisfound
nudelyingonthebed.

50.Fortheforegoingdiscussions,IhaveeveryreasontoholdthatP.W.1is
believableanditwillnotbeunsafetoconvicttheaccusedrelyingonherevidencewhich
alsodrawscorroborationfromotherevidenceslikeMO.48photographsetc.

51.Nowwhatistheoffencethattheactsoftheaccusedconstitute?AsIhave
alreadyconcludedtheprosecutionhasfailedtoprovetheoffenceofrape.Inmyconsidered

opinionfirstly,theaboveactoftheaccusedwouldconstituteanoffenceunderpunishable
Section354ofI.P.C.Section354ofI.P.C.readsasfollows:

"Section354:Assaultorcriminalforcetowomanwithintenttooutragehermodesty:
Whoeverassaultsorusescriminalforcetoanywoman,intendingtooutrageorknowingitto
belikelythathewilltherebyoutragehermodesty,shallbepunishedwithimprisonmentof
eitherdescriptionforatermwhichmayextendtotwoyears,orwithfine,orwithboth."

52.Section349I.P.C.definesastowhatis'Force'andSection350ofI.P.C.
definesastowhatis'CriminalForce'.Section349and350readasunder:

"Section349:Force:Apersonissaidtouseforcetoanotherifhecausesmotion,
changeofmotionorcessationormotiontothatother,orifhecausestoanysubstances
suchmotion,orchangeofmotion,orcessationofmotionasbringsthatsubstanceinto
contactwithanypartofthatother'sbody,orwithanythingwhichthatotheriswearingor
carrying,orwithanythingsosituatedthatsuchcontactaffectsthatother'ssenseof
feeling:

Providedthatthepersoncausingthemotion,orchangeofmotion,orcessationof
motion,causesthatmotion,changeofmotion,orcessationofmotioninoneofthethree
wayshereinafterdescribed.

Firstly,byhisownbodilypower.

Secondly,bydisposinganysubstanceinsuchamannerthatthemotionorchangeor
cessationofmotiontakesplacewithoutanyfurtheractonhispart,oronthepartofany
otherperson.

Thirdly,byinducinganyanimaltomove,tochangeitsmotion,ortoceasetomove.

Section350:CriminalForce:Whoeverintentionallyusesforcetoanyperson,without
thatperson'sconsent,inordertothecommittingofanyoffence,orintendingbytheuseof
suchforcetocause,orknowingittobelikelythatbytheuseofsuchforcehewillcause
injury,fearorannoyancetothepersontowhomtheforceisused,issaidtousecriminal
forcetothatother."

53.Afterhavingaconjointreadingofthesethreeprovisions,ifweanalysethe
factsofthiscase,itwouldmakeitipsofactoclearthatcessationofmotiononthepart
ofP.W.1duetosedationcausedbythesetwoaccusedamountsto"Force"andsincethesame
wasdonewithanintentiontocommittheoffenceofintimidation,itfallswithintheambit
ofSection350ofI.P.C.as"CriminalForce".Thuseventuallytheactoftheaccusedfalls
withintheambitofSection354ofI.P.C.ThoughthereisnospecificchargeunderSection
354ofI.P.C.sincetherearechargesunderSections376and376r/w109ofI.P.C.,itis
legallypermissibletoconvictboththeaccusedunderSection354ofI.P.C.inviewof
Section222ofCr.P.C.Therefore,theaccusedareliabletobepunishedunderSection354
ofI.P.C.insteadofSection376and376r/wSection109ofI.P.C.

54.Nextly,itistheevidenceofP.W.1thatthefirstaccusedfrequentlyspoketo
heroverphonewhileshewasinKeralaandintimidatedherusingthenudephotographs
(M.O.48series).Exs.P.18toP.20(Callregisters)wouldclearlygotocorroboratethe
evidenceofP.W.1thatA1frequentlycalledheroverphone.Thephotographshadbeentaken
onlywithaviewofintimidateherandtoforcehertoagreeformarriagewithA1.This
clearlymakesoutanoffenceunderSection506ofI.P.C.againstthefirstaccused.

55.Thencomes,theconvictionunderSection366ofI.P.C.Itistheevidenceof
P.W.1thatwhileshewaswaitingforbusatFlowerMarketBusstand,thefirstaccusedcame
inacarandenquiredastowhyshewaswaiting.P.W.1toldhimthatshewaswaitingfor
bustogotoSaiBabaTemple.A1offeredtotakeherinthecartothesaidtemple.
Believinghiswords,shegotintothecar.ButinsteadoftakinghertotheTemple,A1took
hertothehouseofA2,where,thenudephotographsweretaken.Thoughabird'seyeviewof
theevidenceofP.W.1maygiveanimpressionasthoughshewillinglywentwithA1inthe
car,inmyconsideredopinion,itisnotso.Shewasinducedtogetintothecarby
deceptivemeans.ButfortheassurancegivenbyA1,thathewoulddropherintheTemple,
shewouldnothavegotintothecar.Thustakingapersonfromoneplacetoanotherplace
byinducingthatpersonbyanydeceptivemeanswouldsquarelyfallwithinthedefinitionof
abductionasdefinedunderSection362ofI.P.C.


56.ThepurposeoftakingP.W.1wasonlytocompelhertomarrythefirstaccused.
P.W.1hasstatedthatshefoundanyellowthreadaroundherneckwhenshegotrelievedfrom
sedation.M.O.48photographswouldgotoshowthattherewassuchanyellowthreadaround
herneck.Itiscommonknowledgethattyingayellowthreadaroundtheneckofawoman
symbolisesmarriage.WhenP.W.1questionedtheaccused,theytoldP.W.1thatitwasonly
thefirstaccusedwhotiedtheyellowthreadaroundherneckindicatingmarriage.Thusfrom
theevidenceofP.W.1,whichisdulycorroboratedbyM.O.No.48nudephotographs,the
prosecutionhasprovedthatP.W.1wasabductedbythefirstaccusedforthepurposeof
compellinghertomarryhim.Thisactofthefirstaccusedsquarelyfallswithintheambit
ofSection366ofI.P.C.

57.Nowcomingtothequantumofpunishment,goingbythegravityoftheoffenceand
thewayinwhichthesamehasbeenexecuted,theageofP.W.1andthefactthatherlifehas
beenruined,Iholdthatboththeaccuseddeservedeterrentpunishment.Inmyconsidered
opinion,fortheoffenceunderSection354ofI.P.C.boththeaccusedareliabletobe
sentencedtoundergothemaximumsentenceoftwoyearsofrigourousimprisonmentwithfine
ofRs.10,000/each.FortheoffenceunderSection506ofI.P.C.thefirstaccusedis
liabletobesentencedtoundergorigourousimprisonmentfortwoyearsasimposedbythe
TrialCourt.ForoffenceunderSection366ofI.P.C.thefirstaccusedisliabletobe
sentencedtoundergorigourousimprisonmentforthreeyearsandtopayafineofRs.50,000/
indefaulttoundergosimpleimprisonmentForoneyear.

58.Beforepartingwiththecase,Iamboundtomakethefollowingobservations.
OneMr.ShanmugamS/o.Mr.RamasamywhowasthenworkingasCoimbatoreTownVillage
AdministrativeOfficerwasexaminedon12.03.2004,whereinhedeposedtotheeffectthaton
31.07.2003,thefirstaccusedgaveavoluntaryconfession.Butnothingwasrecoveredoutof
thesame.Thusthesaidevidenceisofnouse.Again,thesamewitnessMr.ShanmugamS/o
Mr.Ramasamy,thethenV.A.O.ofCoimbatore,wasexaminedbeforetheTrialCourton
26.07.2004.Strangelyandshockingly,thistimehewasexaminedasP.W.36.AsP.W.36he
hasspokentoabouttheopeningofthesuitcasewhichwasproducedbyP.W.48andthe
recoveryofM.O.48seriesandothermaterials.Thustherecordshowsthatoneandthesame
witnesswasexaminedtwice,onceasP.W.21andagainasP.W.36.Thisshowsthatneitherthe
appellantsnorthelearnedPublicProsecutornortheTrialCourthadbestowedlittle
attentiontothecase.IamhopefulthatatleastinthedaystocometheTrialCourts
shallbestowthebestattentionrequiredwhileconductingthetrial.

59.Anotheraspectisthat,inthiscase,atotalnumberof49witnesseshavebeen
examined.Manywitnessesareunnecessarywitnesseswhohavenotatallbeenexaminedto
speakaboutanyrelevantfactorfactsinissue.Simplybecausesomepersonshavebeen
citedaswitnessesbytheInvestigatingOfficer,theTrialCourtisnotboundtoexamine
suchwitnesses.TheTrialCourthastolookintotherelevanceofthesaidwitnessandthen
examine.Here,manywitnessescitedinthechargesheetwerenottospeakaboutany
relevantfactorfactsinissue.Thisagainshowsthatrequiredattentionwasnotshownby
theTrialCourt.IamforcedtomaketheseobservationsonlyonthehopethattheTrial
Courtsshallbestowmoreattentionwhilerecordingevidence.

60.Intheresult,theappealispartlyallowedinthefollowingterms:
(i)TheconvictionofthefirstappellantunderSection376ofI.P.C.andconvictionof
thesecondappellantunderSection376r/w109I.P.Caresetasideandinsteadtheyare
convictedfortheoffenceunderSection354ofI.P.C.andaresentencedtoundergorigourous
imprisonmentfortwoyearsandpayafineofRs.10,000/each,indefaulttoundergofurther
rigourousimprisonmentforonemonth.
(ii)theconvictionandsentenceimposedonthefirstappellantforoffencesunder
Section506ofI.P.C.isconfirmed.
(iii)theconvictionofthefirstappellantunderSection366isconfirmed,howeverthe
sentenceismodifiedtotheeffectthatheshallundergorigourousimprisonmentforthree
yearsandpayafineofRs.50,000/indefaulttoundergofurtherrigourousimprisonmentfor
oneyear.
(iv)Theperiodofsentencealreadyundergonebytheappellantsshallbesetoff.The

TrialCourtshallsecuretheaccusedandcommitthemtoprisontoundergotheremaining
periodofsentence,ifany.
(v)Outofthefineamount,asumofRs.25,000/shallbepaidascompensationtoP.W.1
underSection357ofCr.P.C.Inanyevent,ifP.W.1eitherdeclinestoreceivethe
compensationorfailstoreceivethesamewithinsixmonthsfromthedateofserviceof
noticeonher,thesameshallgototheExchequeroftheTamilNaduStateGovernment.
(vi)Inallotheraspects,thisappealstandsdismissed.
05.08.2011
Kmk/kk
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes

To
1.TheInspectorofPolice,
AllWomenPoliceStation,
Coimbatore.
2.TheSessionsJudge,
MagalirNeethimandram,
Coimbatore.

3.ThePublicProsecutor,
HighCourt,Madras.
S.NAGAMUTHU,J.

kmk/kk

PREDELIVERYJUDGMENT
IN
Crl.A.No.277of2005

05.08.2011