CRL A(MD)/27/2019 of JEYALAKSHMI Vs THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF on 4 November 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, in S.C.No.127of 2015, dated 22.01.2019.

2. On careful perusal of records, it is found that on 19.03.2015 at around 10.00 a.m. based on the complaint given by PW1 Rekha, daughter of Jayakumar, PW22 Tmt.Chithradevi, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kamuthi, registered Ex.P17 First Information Report in Crime No.7 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 417, 376, 506(i) of IPC r/w. Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST Amendment Ordinance Act, 2014. PW22 has forwarded the First

Information Report to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi and other higher officials.

3. PW24 Mr.Sekar Theshmukh, the then Assistant Superintendent of Police, Kamuthi, had taken up the investigation of the said case as per Ex.P19 proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam on 19.03.2015. He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P3 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P20 Rough Sketch in the presence of witnesses Selvarajakani and Malairaja. On the same day, at around 12.00 noon, he visited the secondary scene of crime and prepared Ex.P21 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P22 Rough Sketch in the presence of the same witnesses. He examined the de facto complainant and other witnesses and recorded their statements. On the same day, he arrested the Accused Saravanan, Sonaimuthu, Pandi and Ayyanar at Kottaimedu bus stand, brought them to the Police Station and caused them to be remanded to judicial custody.

4. On 23.03.2015, he forwarded the victim for medical examination through Grade-I PC 1473, Tmt.Indra and Manickavalli and forwarded the Accused Saravanan for medical examination through Special Sub-Inspector of Police Rajendran and Grade-I PC Ethiraj. On 22.03.2015, he gave a requisition to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvadanai, for recording the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. On 25.03.2015, he examined the witnesses, the Special Sub-Inspector of Police Chitradevi, the Special Sub- Inspector of Police Mr.Srinivasan and Grade I PC 1840 Rathinavel and recorded their statements. On 26.03.2015, he examined Head Constable 1473 Indira, Manickavalli and SSI Mr.Rajendiran and recorded their statements.

5. On 27.03.2015, he examined the Head Constable Tmt.Backiaselvi, who forwarded the victim to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvadanai and recorded the statement under Section 164 of CrPC. On 05.04.2015, he forwarded the samples collected from the Accused to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory. On 07.04.2015, he examined the de facto complainant Jayakumar and Papa and recorded their further statements. On 08.04.2015, he examined the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Amalurpaya, Jeyaram and Tahsildar Naganathan and recorded their statements. He received the community certificates of the Accused and the de facto complainant and forwarded the same to the Court.

6. On 12.04.2015, he examined Nesamuthu Selvi and Valarmathi and recorded their statements. On 13.04.2015, he forwarded the samples collected from the victim to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory through Head Constable 406. On 17.04.2015, he examined Woman Head

Constable Backiyajothi and recorded her statements. On 18.04.2015, the Accused Jayalakshmi, Karthick and Kavitha obtained anticipatory bail from this Court and therefore, he did not arrest them.

7. On 20.04.2015, he examined the witnesses Balamurugan and Sub Inspector Ranjithkumar and recorded their statements. On 06.05.2015, he recorded the further statement of the Special Sub-Inspector of Police Chitradevi. On 21.05.2015, he examined the witness Vijayendran and recorded his statement. On 25.05.2015, he examined the Doctor Govindaraj and Head Clerk Janaki and recorded their statements. On 01.06.2015, he examined Rekha and recorded her further statement. On 12.06.2015, he examined the de facto complainant Rekha, Jayakumar, Papa, and Nesamuthu Selvi and recorded their further statements. On 14.06.2015, he altered the sections of the case and forwarded Ex.P23 Alteration Report to the Court. On the same day, he laid the final report before the Court.

8. The Trial Court has taken cognizance of the said final report and issued summons to the Accused. The learned Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance of the said final report and issued summons to the Accused and on their appearance, the copies of documents relied on by the prosecution were furnished to them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Since the offences were triable by the Special Court under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, he committed the said case to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.

9. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, has taken cognizance of the said case in Spl.S.C.No.127 of 2015. On hearing both sides, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge has framed the charges for the offences under Sections 450, 417, 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989 as against the 1st Accused and the charges for the offences under Sections 4 of TNPHW Act and Sections 352, 147, 506(ii) of IPC and Sections 3(2)(x) and 3(2)(xi) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989 as against the Accused Nos.2 and 4 and the charges for the offence under Sections 147, 506(ii) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989 as against the Accused Nos.3, 5 to 7. The charges were explained to the Accused, which they denied as false. Therefore, they were tried by the Trial Court.

10. On the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW24 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P23 were marked. Upon closure of the prosecution side evidences, the incriminating circumstances appeared in the prosecution evidence were put to the Accused under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The Accused denied them as false and stated that they have witnesses on their side. On the side of the defence, DW1 was examined; however, no documents were marked through him.

11. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court found the 1st appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989, and the Accused Nos.2 and 4 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 352 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of the TNPHW Act and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989, and found the Accused Nos.3 and 5 to 7 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989. The learned Trial Judge had convicted and sentenced the appellants as follows: Accused Nos. Penal Provision Imprisonment Fine amount A1 417 of IPC One year Simple Imprisonment Rs.1,000/- in default of which to undergo one month

simple imprisonment A1 376 (2) (n) of IPC Ten years rigorous imprisonment Rs.25,000/- in default of which to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment A1 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act Ten Years rigorous imprisonment Rs.25,000/- in default of which to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment A2 to A7 147 of IPC Two

years simple imprisonment Rs.1,000/- in default of which to undergo two months

simple imprisonment A2 to A7 506(ii) of IPC One year simple imprisonment Rs.1,000/- in default of which to undergo one month

simple imprisonment

A2 and A4 352 of IPC Three months simple imprisonment Rs.500/- in default of which to undergo two weeks

simple imprisonment A2 and A4 4 of TNPHW Act Three

years rigorous Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- in default of which to undergo three months

rigorous imprisonment A2 to A7 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act Four

years Rigorous Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- in default of which to undergo six months

rigorous imprisonment A2 and A4 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (PoA) Act Five

years Rigorous Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- in default of which to undergo six months

rigorous imprisonment

12. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. Mr.M.Subhash Babu, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant was heard, and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the de facto complainant were also heard. The Trial Court records are called for and perused.

13. Point for Determination: Whether the conviction and sentence passed against the Accused/appellant is sustainable? Answer:

14. On a careful perusal of the records, it is found that it is the case of

the prosecution before the Trial Court that the de facto complainant Rekha belongs to the Hindu Paraiyan Community, a Scheduled Caste. The Accused belongs to the Hindu Agamudiayar Community, which is neither a Scheduled Caste nor a Scheduled Tribe. The de facto complainant and the first Accused Saravanan had developed a relationship over the phone and had been in a friendly relationship for about one year. The first Accused had promised the de facto complainant that he would marry her and trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant when nobody was at home and had established forcible sexual intercourse with her several times. When the parents of the de facto complainant were arranging a bridegroom for her, the first Accused threatened the de facto complainant that she should marry only him.

15. It is the further case of the prosecution that the de facto complainant and the first Accused belonged to different communities. Therefore, the first Accused induced the de facto complainant to go over to Tirupur on 15.03.2015. The first Accused solemnized the marriage with the de facto complainant. Meanwhile, the father of the de facto complainant lodged a complaint at the Mandalamanickam Police Station regarding a girl missing.

16. After learning that the de facto complainant was with the first

Accused, A2, A3 and A4 were proceeded to Tirupur to bring them back in an Indica car bearing Registration No. TN 38 AB 4944. On 16.03.2015, at around 11.30 p.m., upon seeing that the de facto complainant was with the first Accused, they brought both of them in the said car. In transit, Accused 2 and 4 abused the de facto complainant by saying, “Vz;b gwNjtbah kfNs cdf;F cau;e;j [hjp GUrd; Nfl;Fjh?” Accused 2 and 4 also attacked the de facto complainant and snatched the thali worn by her. Further, the second Accused threatened the de facto complainant by saying to kill her. Fearing for her life, the de facto complainant ran on the road. The Police attached to the Ottanchathiram Police Station found the de facto complainant and brought her to the Police Station along with the Accused. They informed the Mandalamanickam Police and handed them over on 17.03.2015.

17. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 18.03.2015, the de facto complainant and the first Accused were produced before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi. The learned Judicial Magistrate instructed the de facto complainant to take action through the Police. The de facto complainant and her parents were standing at the Kottaimedu Union Office bus stop on 18.3.2015 at around 2 p.m. Accused 2 to 7 unlawfully assembled there, abused the de facto complainant and her family members in a public place and threatened them. Further, they humiliated the de facto complainant and her family members by referring to their caste names. Therefore, the acts of the first Accused are punishable under Sections 450, 417, and 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Accused 2 and 4 are punishable under Sections 147, 352, and 506(ii) of IPC, Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act and Section 4 of the TNPHW Act. Accused 3, 5, 6, and 7 are punishable under Sections 147 and 506(ii) of IPC, Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act and Section 4 of the TNPHW Act.

18. To substantiate the said case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW24 and Exhibits P1 to P23 were marked. On the side of the defence, DW1 was examined; however, no documents were marked through DW1.

19. On a careful perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is found that the de facto complainant, PW1 Rekha, in her evidence, deposed that she was residing at Chinna Udappankulam Village, Kamuthi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District with her parents. She had completed Teacher Training Course. She was working at Chennai Silks, Kamuthi. She belongs to the Hindu Paraiyan Community. She knows all the Accused. They belong to the Hindu Agamudaiyar Servai Community. The Accused were residing nearby the de facto complainant’s house. She had a good relationship with the family members of the Accused from her childhood.

20. PW1 further deposed that the first Accused studied up to B.Sc. Chemistry. However, he used to go for cooking at marriage houses. The first Accused compelled her to love him. At that time, the de facto complainant stated that the first Accused belonged to a different community and she belonged to a different community. However, the first Accused impressed upon her by saying that he truly loved her and would definitely marry her. Therefore, she also agreed to his proposal. He used to come to the shop where she was working and talk with her. He used to talk with her over the phone as well. Her mobile number is 99440 41485 and the first Accused's mobile number is 96291 03656. When her parents went outstation, she would be alone in her house. During that time, he used to come to her house and talk with her.

21. PW1 further deposed that one day, when her parents had gone to Kamuthi, the first Accused promised her that he would marry her without fail and established a sexual relationship with her forcibly. Thereafter, he established a sexual relationship with her several times. Her sister-in-law, Nesamuthu Selvi, came to know about this and informed the de facto complainant’s parents. Her parents called the first Accused and asked him about this. The first Accused informed her parents that he would definitely marry the de facto complainant. The victim's parents informed him that it would not work out and that they were therefore objecting to the marriage between the victim and the first Accused. Even thereafter, the de facto complainant and the first Accused continued to talk with each other. Her parents were looking for marriage proposals from others.

22. PW1 further deposed that on 14.03.2015, the bridegroom came to see her for the purpose of marriage. On 15.03.2015, the first Accused called her over the phone and questioned her as to whether the bridegroom had come to see her. She informed him that he should come and seek the bride. The first Accused asked her to come to Tiruppur immediately; otherwise, he would reveal the relationship between him and the de facto complainant to the family members of the bridegroom. Further, he threatened her by saying that he would commit suicide.

23. PW1 further deposed that on 15.03.2015, in the afternoon, she left her house. On 16.03.2015, the first Accused and the de facto complainant got married with the help of the first Accused's friend, Kannan and one sister at a temple in Tiruppur. Her father lodged a complaint at Mandalamanikam Police Station regarding the girl missing.

24. PW1 further deposed that on 17.03.2015, the first Accused brother Karthik, father Sonaimuthu and Ayyanar came to Tiruppur. Before that first night between the de facto complainant and the first Accused was over.

They brought the first Accused and the de facto complainant from Tiruppur by car. On the way, they stopped the car at one place and abused her by saying the words, "gwj; Njtbah cdf;F cau;e;j [hjp GUrd; Nfl;Fjh’’ and attacked her inside the car. The first Accused brother Karthik and his father attacked the de facto complainant. Both of them snatched her thali. The first Accused's father told them, “Njtbah kfNs nfhy;Yq;flh”.

25. PW1 further deposed that immediately, she became afraid for her life and ran onto the road. This incident happened near Ottanchatram. On seeing her running, the local people informed the Ottanchatram Police. The Ottanchatram Police came there and took the de facto complainant, her husband/first Accused, his father Sonaimuthu, his brother Karthik and Ayyanar to the Police Station. They informed their parents, who rushed to the Ottanchatram Police Station. On the same day, they were brought to the Mandalamanikam Police Station. The de facto complainant was kept at All Women Police Station, Kamuthi. The first Accused was kept at Mandalamanikam Police Station.

26. PW1 further deposed that on 18.03.2015, the de facto complainant was produced before the Kamuthi Court. The learned Magistrate examined both of them. The first Accused informed the Magistrate that there was no proof of their marriage and asked her to take steps. Therefore, her parents and brother were standing at the Kamuthi Union Office bus stand to proceed to her village. At that time, the first Accused's father Sonaimuthu, her brother Saravanan, her mother Jeyalakshmi, sister Kavitha, one Pandi, S/o.Angappan, Ayyanar S/o.Kamatchi, came there and abused her by saying Vz;b gwj;Njtbah eP Nky; eltbf;if vLj;jpq;fs;dh FLk;gj;NjhL ‘’

nfhSj;jptpLNthk;’’.

27. PW1 further deposed that on the next day, she lodged Ex.P1 complaint with the All Women Police Station, Kamuthi. She was forwarded to the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram, for medical examination. During the medical examination, it was found that she was three months pregnant. Her parents took her to their house. After three months, she experienced pain and bleeding. She informed the same to the All Women Police Station, Kamuthi. They informed the Additional Superintendent of Police. They again forwarded her to Ramanathapuram for medical examination. The Doctor informed her that her pregnancy had been aborted. Thereafter, she was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai. She gave a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. to the learned Judicial Magistrate, which was marked as Ex.P2.

28. PW2, Pappa is the mother of the de facto complainant. She, in her evidence, deposed that the Accused were their neighbours. She came to

know that her daughter and the first Accused were in a relationship. Immediately, they started looking for a bridegroom for their daughter. The de facto complainant eloped on the next day. They searched for her in all places. They lodged a complaint at the Mandalamanikam Police Station.

29. PW2 further deposed that after the Police informed them that their daughter had been secured and kept at Ottanchathiram Police Station, both of them went to the Ottanchathiram Police Station and asked their daughter why she had done this. The Police informed them that she had gone on her own accord. They asked them to take both of them. Both of them were brought to the Kamuthi Police Station. Their daughter was kept at the All Women Police Station, Kamuthi and the first Accused was kept at another Police Station. Both of them were taken to the Court. In Court, the learned Magistrate questioned her daughter as to whether there was any proof of the marriage. Since the thali had been snatched at Ottanchatram, she reported that there was no proof of the marriage. She was sent to the hospital. Thereafter, the learned Judge instructed them to take further action.

30. PW2 further deposed that they proceeded and stood at Kottaimedu Union bus stand, Kamuthi. At that time, the Accused came there and abused them by saying, gw [hjp eha;q;f> cq;fSf;F cau;e;j [hjp khg;gps;is Nfl;Fjh?. Further, they threatened them. There, Muthu and

Bhoomi intervened and prevented further quarrelling.

31. PW2 further deposed that the Additional Superintendent of Police received the complaint from her daughter and interrogated PW2 at the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram. After the medical examination, they were informed that her daughter was pregnant. Thereafter, she had heavy bleeding and therefore, they informed the Additional Superintendent of Police. He forwarded the de facto complainant to the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram, for a medical check-up again. On examination, the Doctor informed them that her pregnancy had been aborted. Her daughter was with her.

32. PW3 Jayakumar, the father of the de facto complainant deposed in line with PW2. PW4 Senthil Kumar is the brother of the de facto complainant/PW1. He also deposed in line with PW2 and PW3. PW5 Nesamuthu Selvi, is the sister-in-law of PW1. She also deposed in line with PW2 to PW4.

33. PW6 Bhoomiyammal, spoke about the incident that happened at Kottaimedu bus stand, Kamuthi. According to her, the Accused were standing at the bus stop. They picked a quarrel with Jayakumar, Paappa, Senthilkumar and Rekha. At that time, they abused them by saying, gw eha;fsh mtu;fis vupj;Jtpl Ntz;Lk;.

34. PW7 Valarmathi has spoken that she had seen the de facto complainant and the first Accused frequently travelling on a motorcycle. She had seen the de facto complainant and the first Accused talking at a Jawuli shop in Kamuthi. When she enquired with the de facto complainant, she informed her that she had been talking with the first Accused for the past one year. At that time, PW7 stated that both of them belonged to different communities. Further, the de facto complainant informed her that they had a sexual relationship and that the first Accused had promised to marry her.

35. PW8 Selvaraj is the witness to the Observation mahazar. He has spoken about the preparation of Ex.P3 Observation Mahazar. PW9 Naganathan, Tahsildar, Kamuthi, deposed in his evidence that he had issued Ex.P4 Community Certificate to the de facto complainant. As per Ex.P4 community certificate, the de facto complainant belongs to the Hindu Paraiyan Community.

36. PW10 Tmt.Indra, Grade I Police Constable, is the one who produced the de facto complainant for medical examination at the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram. PW11 Tmt.Manikkavalli, Grade I Police Constable, Kamuthi, is the one who had taken the victim for medical examination on 20.03.2015. She produced the victim before the Kamuthi Court on 23.02.2015. PW12 Rajendran, the Special Sub-Inspector of Police, escorted the Accused for medical examination at the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram on 24.03.2015 at around 19:40 hours.

37. PW13 Balamurugan is the driver of the vehicle. He deposed that, as requested by the second Accused, he had taken Accused 1 and 2 to Tiruppur. Further, he had brought the first Accused and one woman from Tiruppur to the All Women Police Station, Kamuthi. PW14 Mr. Ethiraj, Head Constable 309, is the one who produced the first Accused, Saravanan, for medical examination on 23.03.2015.

38. PW15 Tmt.Bhackiyajothi, Woman Head Constable, produced the victim before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai, for recording her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. PW16 A.Ranjithkumar, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ottanchatram Police Station, deposed that on 17.03.2015, at around 11.30 a.m., while he was at the Ottanchatram Police Station, the de facto complainant and the Accused were brought to the Police Station by the Police. They informed him that the de facto complainant had married the first Accused at Tiruppur and that, upon hearing this news, the first Accused's elder brother, Karthik, had threatened her, causing the de facto complainant to run away from there. He enquired into the matter, informed the Mandalamanikam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District and handed them over to Special Sub-Inspector of

Police Karuppaiya and Woman Head Constable Thenmozhi.

39. PW17 Vijayendran, Scientific Officer, deposed that on 13.04.2015, he received samples from the Court. He issued Ex.P5 Biological Report, stating that no semen was found in the vaginal smear, cervical smear, vaginal swab, or cervical swab. Further, he issued Ex.P6 serological report, stating that the blood group of the de facto complainant was B group. The test results relating to the saliva sample and semen sample were inconclusive.

40. PW18 Dr.Sivanandhavalli, is the Doctor, who examined the de facto complainant on 20.03.2015. She issued Ex.P7 certificate, stating that the de facto complainant was fit to have sexual intercourse. She had lost her virginity and her hymen was not intact. There were no signs of recent intercourse. Her blood group was ‘B’ positive. The de facto complainant was forwarded for forensic examination to ascertain her age. Her blood, saliva, cervical smear and vaginal smear were collected. No injury was found on her private parts. The de facto complainant was admitted for the second time. At that time, the Doctor was asked to answer the question of whether the de facto complainant was pregnant. She reported that the test conducted showed that her pregnancy was positive. In response to the question of whether the de facto complainant was still pregnant or had aborted, she replied that the victim was not pregnant and that she had an abortion. In this connection, she issued Ex.P8 certificate.

41. PW19 Dr.Rajkumar issued Ex.P9 age certificate to the first Accused, stating that he was above 22 years of age. PW20 Ammalorpava Jeyarani, Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Kamuthi, deposed in her evidence that the Accused belonged to the Hindu Agamudaiyar Community. In this connection, she issued Ex.P10 to P16 certificates. PW21, Janaki, is the one who made a requisition to the Court for the medical examination of the Accused.

42. PW22, Tmt.Chithradevi, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the First Information Report based on the complaint given by the de facto complainant. PW23 Dr.Govindaraj, conducted a medical examination of the first Accused on 23.03.2015 and issued Ex.P8 opinion, stating that there is nothing to suggest that the Accused was impotent.

43. PW24 Mr.Sekar Dhesmukh, the Investigating Officer, has spoken about the investigation conducted by him, the arrest of the Accused, the medical examination of the first Accused and the filing of the final report before the Court.

44. On a careful perusal of the evidence produced on the side of the prosecution, it is found that the sexual offences are said to have occurred on various dates. The occurrence involving the snatching of the thali is said to have happened on 17.03.2015 and the occurrence involving the abuse by the Accused is said to have happened on 18.03.2015 at Kottaimedu bus stop. Except for the last occurrence, there are no eyewitnesses to the other occurrences, except the de facto complainant.

45. From the evidence of PW1, it is found that she was aged about 24 years on the date of the examination before the Court. She has not stated her age as on the date of the occurrence. However, as per Ex.P7, it is found that a radiological examination was conducted on the victim to ascertain her age. However, the said radiological report was not produced before the Trial Court. It is not the case of the prosecution that the de facto complainant was a child at the time of the occurrence. Therefore, it is clear that PW1 is an adult as on the date of occurrence.

46. Upon a careful perusal of the evidence of PW1, it is found that she has not specified the date on which the first intercourse occurred. It is her evidence that one day, when her parents had gone to Kamuthi, the Accused herein promised her that he would marry her and established a sexual relationship with her and thereafter, they had physical relationships several times. The evidence of PW1 makes it very clear that she was aware of the fact that she belonged to the Hindu Paraiyan community and the Accused belonged to the Hindu Agamudaiyar community. Due to the caste differences, the marriage of the de facto complainant and the first Accused was opposed. Despite that, in view of the promise made by the first Accused that he would marry her, she also consented to the relationship. The evidence of the victim clearly discloses that they had a sexual relationship out of deep love.

47. The evidence of the de facto complainant further reveals that the relationship came to the knowledge of her sister-in-law, PW5 Nesamuthu Selvi. Despite that they continued their relationship. The evidence of PW1 further reveals that the parents of the de facto complainant had arranged a marriage proposal for PW1 with another person from Vilathikulam, which she informed to the first Accused. Immediately, the first Accused called her to Tiruppur and married her with the help of his friend, Kannan and one sister. From the above evidence, it is clear that the first Accused fulfilled his promise to marry her and that he had no deceptive intention at the time of his relationship with PW1. Therefore, the offence under Sections 417 of the IPC is not proved.

48. Further, the victim was an adult and she consented to a sexual relationship with the first Accused on the promise of marriage. Therefore,

the said consent cannot be said to have been obtained through fear or misconception. The de facto complainant had know the consequences of establishing a sexual relationship even before the marriage. She admitted the same in her cross-examination. Despite that being in love with the first Accused, she established a physical relationship with him. Therefore, the offence under Section 376 (2) (n) would not be attracted in this case as it is a case of consensual relationship.

49. Further, from her evidence, it is found that on 16.03.2015, the first Accused married her at Tiruppur and thereafter, they established a physical relationship. As per Exception 2 to Section 375 of IPC, establishing a sexual relationship with wife not being a minor would not come under the offence of rape. Therefore, the charge under Section 376(2)(n) is also not proved against the first Accused.

50. The charge under Section 450 of the IPC is to the effect that the first Accused had trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant for having a sexual relationship with her. As stated supra, the sexual relationship was established only with the consent of PW1. Since PW1 and the first Accused were in love, their having a sexual relationship even before marriage is not an offence and the pre marital sex is not prohibited by the law of the land. Hence, the offence under Section 450 would also not be attracted in this case.

51. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 16.03.2015, at around 11.30 p.m., Accused Nos. 2 and 4 proceeded to Tiruppur and brought PW1 and the first Accused in the car. In transit, when they reached near Ottanchatram, Accused Nos.2 and 4 threatened PW1 and snatched her thali inside the car. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of this Court the evidence of PW13, the driver who had driven the said car. Balamurugan is the driver who drove the car at the request of the second Accused. According to him, he had taken Accused Nos.1 and 2 to Tiruppur and dropped them at the New Bus Stand, Tiruppur. Further, he brought the first Accused and the woman to the All Women Police Station, Kamuthi. From the evidence of PW13, it is found that only the first Accused and PW1 returned from Tiruppur in the said car. Though PW13 did not support the case of the prosecution, the prosecution did not treat him as hostile. Therefore, the evidence of PW13 completely negates the occurrence said to have happened at Ottanchatram inside the car.

52. Further, in respect of the occurrence said to have happened at Ottanchatram, the prosecution examined PW16 Ranjithkumar. PW16 also, in his evidence, did not state that the Accused herein had snatched her thali. His evidence is hearsay. According to him, the first Accused and PW1 were brought to the Ottanchatram Police Station by the Police and he handed them over to the Special Sub-Inspector of Police Karuppaiya and Woman Head Constable Thenmozhi. PW16 did not speak about the presence of Accused Nos.2 and 4. Therefore, the presence of Accused Nos. 2 and 4 in the car is not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, the charges against them under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act and Section 352 IPC are not proved.

53. According to the prosecution, on 18.03.2015, Accused Nos. 2 to 7 unlawfully assembled at the Kottaimedu Union Office bus stop and abused the de facto complainant, her parents and her brother and intimidated them. In this regard, PW1 to PW4 had spoken about the said occurrence. Even as per the case of the prosecution, PW5 Nesa Muthuselvi was not present at the scene of crime. Therefore, her evidence is only hearsay.

54. PW6 is one of the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. However, on careful perusal of the evidence of PW6, it is found that she has not specified who was present at the scene of crime and who abused the de facto complainant, her parents and her brother. According to her, the Accused were present and quarrelled with them. It was not brought on record as to who was present at the scene of crime on the date of examination of the said witness before the Court. Therefore, her evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution.

55. According to PW1, Accused Nos. 2 to 7 abused her, her parents, and her brother by saying, Vz;b gwj;Njtbah eP Nky; eltbf;if ‘’

vLj;jpq;fs;dh FLk;gj;NjhL nfhSj;jptpLNthk;’’. According to PW2, the mother of PW1, all the Accused abused them by saying, gw [hjp eha;q;f> cq;fSf;F cau;e;j [hjp khg;gps;is Nfl;Fjh?. According to PW3, the father of PW1, Accused Nos. 2 to 7 followed them to the bus stop and Accused Pandi threatened them by saying, ,dpNky ; Nfhu;l;bw;F NghdPu;fs ; vd;why ; cq;fis tPl;bw;F cs;NsNa ntl;b Gijj;J nfhOj;jp tpLNthk;. Further, the Accused Kavitha attacked them with a chappal. According to PW4, the brother of PW1, all the Accused followed them and abused them by saying ePq;fs; NghyPrpw;F NghdPu;fs; vd;why; gweha;fsh cq;fis tPl;Nlhl nfhOj;jptpLNthk;.

56. On a careful perusal of the above evidence, it is found that the evidence of the witnesses is found to be contradictory with regard to the words employed by the Accused herein. Further, the evidence of prosecution witnesses PW1 to PW4 cannot be believed for the simple reason that all the Accused A2 to A7 could not have abused them with the same words at the same time in a unison. Therefore, the alleged abuses and utterances said to have been made by Accused Nos. 2 to 7 are not proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

57. Apart from that, as per Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, the offence should have happened in public view. None of the witnesses have spoken about the said utterances having been made in the presence of the public and therefore, causing humiliation to them through those utterances. Therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act are also not proved.

58. Apart from that, on a careful perusal of the evidence projected on the side of the prosecution, it is found that the de facto complainant had proceeded to Tiruppur on 15.03.2015. Thereafter, PW3 is said to have given a girl-missing complaint before the Mandalamanikam Police Station on 16.03.2015. However, the said complaint was not produced before the trial Court.

59. Further, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses reveals that the first Accused and PW1 were produced before the Kamuthi All Women Police Station and Mandalamanikam Police Station respectively and subsequently produced before the Court, wherein the Magistrate is said to have conducted an enquiry. The said proceedings were not produced before the Trial Court to show what transpired during the enquiry conducted by the learned Magistrate insofar as the offence said to have occurred at Ottanchathiram.

60. Though PW16 has stated that PW1 and the first Accused were produced before him to prove the interrogation conducted at the Ottanchathiram Police Station, the station diary and CSR were not recorded or produced. According to the prosecution witnesses, the parents of PW1 had gone to Ottanchathiram and brought PW1. PW16, in his evidence, deposed that he had handed over PW1 and the first Accused to the Police belonging to the Mandalamanikam Police Station. Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is bristles with many contradictions. The cumulative reading of the evidenced projected on the side of prosecution does not lend credence to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, this Court is constrained to record the order of acquittal as against the Accused in respect of all the offences charged.

61. In the result, these appeals are Allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the Principal District and Sessions Court in Spl.S.C.No.127 of 2015 dated 22.01.2019 as against the appellants is set aside. The bail bonds executed by the appellants are discharged. The fine amount, if any, paid is ordered to be refunded to the appellants. 04-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Indu

S.KARTHIKEYAN, J. Indu To

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, All Women Police Station, Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Pre-Delivery Judgment in CRL A(MD) Nos. 27, 33 & 73 of 2019 04-11-2026