CRL A/932/2019 of S.SURESH Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY on 8 October 2026

JUDGMENT

The appeal challenges the judgment passed in S.C.No.261 of 2016, holding the appellant guilty for the offences under Section 376 r/w 511 r/w 109 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [For brevity, hereinafter referred to as “IPC”].

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim, examined as P.W.2 in this case, is deaf and dumb; that the appellant, A2, and A1 had abducted her from her house and took her to a nearby land and

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:03 pm )

CRL A No. 932 of 2019

attempted to commit rape; that when the victim resisted, they attacked her; and that thereafter, P.W.1, the father of the victim came to the place of occurrence, raised alarm, and the accused fled from the place.

3. On the complaint (Exhibit P.14) given by P.W.1, First Information Report (Exhibit P.15) was registered in Crime No.33 of 2013. P.W.15 took up the investigation and after examination of the witnesses, had filed the final report against both the accused for the offences committed under Sections 376 r/w 511 r/w 109 and 506(ii) of the IPC. The prosecution had examined seventeen witnesses to prove its case besides marking Exhibits P.1 to P.23.

4. The Trial Court found that the prosecution had established this case beyond reasonable doubt and held the appellant guilty of offences and sentenced him as stated above.

5. Though a learned counsel had filed the appeal, since he was continuously absent, this Court appointed Mr.M.Ganesh as the Legal Aid Counsel to assist this Court.

6. Mr.M.Ganesh, learned counsel, submitted that there is absolutely no evidence as against the appellant, either to prove the offence of rape or the offence under Section 307 IPC; that the complainant P.W.1 turned hostile; P.W.2, the victim, identified only the first accused and had not

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:03 pm )

CRL A No. 932 of 2019

implicated the appellant; that the prosecution had not proved the arrest, confession and the seizure said to have been made from the appellant; and that the conviction was based only on the confession of the appellant and the Accident Register, which reveal the bite mark in his palm and marked as Exhibit P.23. The learned counsel would therefore submit that, in the absence of any evidence, the judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside.

7. Ms.Sharada Vivek, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra, submits that the arrest and confession has been established by the examination of P.W.7 and P.W.14; that the prosecution had proved the bite mark on the appellant, which establishes his presence in the occurrence; and that therefore, the impugned judgment is justified.

8. As stated above, the prosecution had examined seventeen witnesses. P.W.1 is the father of the victim and the defacto complainant; P.W.2 is the victim; P.W.3 and P.W.4 translated the deposition of the victim in the Court and her statement to the Doctor respectively; P.W.5 is the Doctor who had examined the appellant and the first accused and issued potency certificates marked as Exhibits P.3 and P.5; P.W.6 was examined as eye-witness and turned hostile; P.W.7 is the Village Administrative Officer, who is said to have witnessed confession and seizure mahazar; P.W.8 is the Doctor who had examined the victim and has issued medical certificates marked as Exhibits P.12 and P.13; P.W.9 is

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:03 pm )

CRL A No. 932 of 2019

the Sub-Inspector who registered the First Information Report; P.W.10 is the Doctor who issued wound certificate for P.W.2/victim, marked as Exhibit P.16; P.W.11 is the first Investigating Officer; P.W.12 is the second Investigating Officer who conducted a part of the investigation; P.W.13 is the sister of the victim; P.W.14 is the Village Assistant, who is said to have witnessed the arrest, confession and seizure made by the Police; P.W.15 is the Inspector of Police who filed the final report; P.W.16 is the Doctor who made entries in the Accident Register (Exhibit P.22) in respect of the first accused and P.W.17 is the Doctor who made entries in the Accident Register (Exhibit P.23) in respect of the appellant.

9. As stated above, it is the prosecution’s case that there was an attempt to commit rape by the accused on the victim girl P.W.2. P.W.1, who claimed to be the eye-witness of the occurrence and had lodged the complaint, turned hostile. Nothing has been elicited by the prosecution to accept any portion of his evidence. On the other hand, the prosecution has cross examined the witness and discredited him. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is of no avail to the prosecution.

10. The victim was examined as P.W.2. P.W.2 identified the first accused and would state that he attempted to commit rape and she, in response, had bitten his hand. Even in cross examination, she confirmed that only one accused was involved in the occurrence and that was the first accused. Nothing has been elicited by the prosecution from the said

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:03 pm )

CRL A No. 932 of 2019

witness to prove the presence of the appellant at the scene of occurrence. That apart, P.W.7, the Village Administrative Officer, who is said to have witnessed the seizure pursuant to the confession of the appellant, would admit in the cross examination that no seizure was made by the Police as claimed by the prosecution and that the accused were taken into custody by the Police on 02.11.2013. This version falsifies the prosecution’s case that the accused was arrested on 03.11.2013 and seizure of the dress materials were made from the appellant. The evidence of P.W.14 also said to have witnessed the arrest and seizure does not support the case of the prosecution.

11. Therefore, what remains is the accident register marked as Exhibit P.23, wherein, it is shown that there was a bite mark in the right palm of the appellant. It cannot be inferred only from this entry in the Accident Register/Exhibit P.23 that the appellant was involved in the occurrence in light of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. It is also pertinent to mentioned that P.W.6, examined as eye-witness, turned hostile.

12. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in the absence of any evidence to find the appellant guilty, the judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside and accordingly, is set aside. The appellant is therefore acquitted of all the offences and the appeal is allowed.

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:03 pm )

CRL A No. 932 of 2019

13. This Court records its appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr.M.Ganesh. The High Court Legal Services Authority shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) to the learned Legal Aid Counsel. 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No (drm)

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:03 pm )

CRL A No. 932 of 2019

To:

1. Inspector Of Police, All Women Police Station, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai.

3. The Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri.

4. The High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:03 pm )

CRL A No. 932 of 2019

SUNDER MOHAN, J. (drm) CRL A No. 932 of 2019 08-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:03 pm )