CRL A/723/2018 of SARAVANAN @ SARAVANAKUMAR Vs STATE BY on 13 October 2026

JUDGMENT

The Criminal Appeal challenges the Judgment dated 22.10.2018 passed in S.C. No. 42 of 2016 by the learned District Sessions Judge, Uthagamandalam, the Nilgiris, convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused as follows: Offence under Section Sentence imposed 417 of IPC To undergo one year RI and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo three months RI; 2 (i). The case of the prosecution is that the appellant and the victim/P.W.1 were known to each other; that on 27.07.2014, the appellant took the victim to a cottage and, on the promise of marriage and by suppressing that he was already married, had sexual intercourse with the victim; that thereafter, till 21.10.2015, the appellant had sexual intercourse with the victim on several occasions; and that the victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste Community, and hence, the appellant committed the offence under Section 417 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

(ii) On a complaint [Ex.P1] given by the victim, P.W.1, an FIR was registered in Crime No. 6 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 417 and 376 of the IPC r/w 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. P.W.25 and P.W.26 conducted the investigation and handed over the investigation to P.W.27, the Inspector of Police, who filed the final report for the offence under Section 420 r/w 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST Act (POA), 1989, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthagamandalam.

(iii) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with, and the case was taken on file as S.C.No.42 of 2016 by the learned District Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam, the Nilgiris. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 417 of the IPC and 3(1)(w) SC/ST (POA) Act. During the trial, when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty'.

(iv) Before the Trial Court, the prosecution had examined 27 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.27 and marked 24 exhibits as Exs.P1 to Ex.P24. When the accused was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any document on his side.

(v) After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court held the appellant guilty of offence under 417 IPC and sentenced him as stated in paragraph No.1 of this Judgment. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused had preferred the instant appeal.

3. Mr.T.Shanmugam, the learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the prosecution failed to establish that the consent of the victim was due to the alleged false representation of the appellant; that the evidence of the victim would suggest that the victim and the appellant had a continuous relationship for more than 1 year; that the evidence also would suggest that the victim knew that the appellant was already married to P.W.15 and yet consented to have a relationship with him; therefore, the offence under section 417 of IPC is not made out, and he prayed for acquittal of the appellant.

4. Ms. Sharadha Vivek, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent, per contra, submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to infer that the victim knew that the appellant was already married; that the victim’s evidence is cogent and convincing and would reveal that she came to know that the appellant was already married only when she, along with her parents, went to the house of the appellant and therefore, there is no infirmity whatsoever in the impugned Judgement and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

5. As stated above, the prosecution had examined 27 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.27. P.W.1 is the victim. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the mother and father of the victim, respectively, and corroborate the evidence of the victim/P.W.1. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the witnesses to the confession statement recorded from the appellant and the witness to the observation mahazar/Ex.P2. Both P.W.4 and P.W.5 turned hostile. P.W.6 was working as a cook in a hotel, and he is a hearsay witness who turned hostile. P.W.7 is a neighbour of the accused and is a hearsay witness and would admit that he was not personally aware of the relationship between the appellant and the victim. P.W.8 was working as a room boy in the Mothimenar Cottage, where one of the alleged occurrences is said to have taken place and also turned hostile. P.W.9 was working as a room boy in the said cottage and also turned hostile.

6. P.W.10 is the Revenue Divisional Officer, who had issued the Community Certificate for the appellant. P.W.11 is the Tahsildar who had issued the Community Certificate for the victim. P.W.12 is the Doctor who had examined the appellant and had issued a potency certificate [Ex.P9]. P.W.13 is the Doctor who was working in the Government Hospital, Uthagai, and had directed the victim to be examined by the Maternity Hospital. P.W.14 is a Doctor who examined the victim and had issued the medical report [Ex.P11] and she had opined that it cannot be said that the victim was not subjected to sexual intercourse recently. P.W.15 is the wife of the appellant and would state that the appellant did not have any relationship with the victim. She did not support the prosecution case. P.W.16 is the Forensic Science Expert who had issued FSL report [Ex.P14]. P.W.17 is the Doctor who had determined the age of the victim and stated that her age could be between 20 and 22 years. P.W.18 was working in the Corporation and had marked the birth certificate of the appellant’s son as Ex.P17. P.W.19 is the lady constable who took the victim to the hospital, and P.W.20 is the constable who took the accused from the jail for medical examination. P.W.21 is the constable who assisted the investigating officer. P.W.22, who was working as the District Munsif, Vellore and had recorded the 164 statement of the victim, Ex.P18. P.W.23 was working as a Social Welfare Officer and had counselled the victim. P.W.24 is the Sub Inspector of Police who registered the FIR. P.W.25, 26 and 27 are the investigating officers.

7. From the above narration, it would be clear that most of the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution turned hostile. The victim's evidence is sought to be corroborated by her parents, P.W.2 and P.W.3. According to the victim, on the promise of marriage, the appellant had sexual intercourse on more than thirty occasions between the month of May 2014 and October 2015. The victim had deposed that she was not aware of the fact that the appellant was already married. The defence of the appellant, however, is that even according to the victim, the appellant and the victim met during the marriage of the victim's relative at Ooty on 09.05.2014, in which the appellant's wife was also present, and therefore, the alleged false representation has been invented to attract the offence under Section 417 of the IPC.

8. Though contradictions between the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, recorded by the Judicial Magistrate and the depositions have been elicited in the cross-examination, this Court is of the view that the fact that the victim had not informed the learned Magistrate about the appellant taking her to the cottage on 21.10.2015 would be of no avail to the defence. The victim has consistently stated that she had a consensual relationship from May 2014 to October 2015. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve that version of the victim.

9. That apart, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of the victim to show that she knew that the appellant was already married to P.W.15. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity whatsoever in the finding of guilt recorded by the Court below. However, considering the nature of the relationship, the period of the relationship, and the age of the appellant, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the sentence imposed on the appellant is modified.

10. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 417 of IPC is confirmed. However, the sentence imposed for the said offence is reduced to the period already undergone. (The appellant was in custody from 23.11.2015 to 29.12.2015). The fine amount imposed on the appellant by the trial Court i.e., Rs.50,000/- is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) and in default to suffer 4 months SI. From out of the fine, Rs.1,45,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Five Thousand Only) shall be paid as compensation to the victim. The fine shall be deposited within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The fine amount already paid, if any, shall be adjusted against the fine amount imposed now. 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dk

Copy to:

1. The District Sessions Judge, Uthagamandalam, The Nilgiris.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udhagai Nagar Sub Division, All Women Police Station, Uthagamandalam, The Nilgiris.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

SUNDER MOHAN, J. dk CRL A No. 723 of 2018 13-10-2026